- (1.) B. K. Sharma, J. The present revision has been filed by the accused-revisionist M/s. Perumal Keomal Oil and Flour Mill, against the order dated 25-3-1985 passed by Sri R. B. Lal, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh, in Criminal Case No. 89 of 1985, State v. Sri Teeka Ram and others, under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, whereby he summoned the accused-revisionist in the case on the complaint of Food Inspector, Didihat, District Pithoragarh dated 18-3-1985. A sample was taken from the shop of Teeka Ram co-accused from a sealed tin of mustard oil bearing Bhagya Laxmi Brand, on which the name of the manufacturer was given. The co- accused Teeka Ram had stated before the Food Inspector that he had purchased this material from the supplier M/s. Bachi Ram Hari Nandan whole sale dealer, Simalgate, Pithoragarh through a credit voucher dated 4-10-1984. Necessary formalities were completed about the taking of sample and after the receipt of the report thereon the complaint was filed.
(2.) THE complaint also indicated that then notice was sent to the supplier who disclosed that he had purchased it from M/s. Perumal Keomal Oil and Flour Mill, Gangapur Bareilly, which is now the revisionist before this Court. Learned Counsel for the accused-revisionist has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 14-A, Section 19 and Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. On consideration of these provisions it is clear that the stage of summoning the manufacturer will arise on proof having been furnished by the vendor as required under Section 19 (2) of the Act and that during the trial of the offence under the Act alleged to have been committed by the vendor on being satis fied from the evidence adduced before it that the manufacturer is also concerned with the said offence, the Court may proceed against the manufacturer as though a prosecution had been launched against it under Section 20 of the Act. That stage is yet to come. Consequently, the summoning order at this stage is illegal and cannot be sustained.
(3.) THE revision, therefore, allowed and the summoning order dated 25-3-1985 is set aside. THE Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall proceed with the trial of the remaining two accused. At a proper stage of the trial the accused-revisionist may be summoned as an ac cused in accordance with the provisions of law as mentioned in the body of this judg ment. The stay order dated 24-5-1985 passed by this Court automatically stands vacated.;