- (1.) V. K. Chaturvedi, J. This revision has been filed by the manufacturer against the order dated 29-9-84 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh in Criminal Case No. 605 of 1984 (State v. M/s. Chet Ram Parumal), summoning the applicant to face trial under Section 7/16oi the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that Food Inspector, Muna Kot, 1 Bahaloo, district Pithoragarh, inspected the shop of Shivraj Singh on 12-10-83 at about 11. 30 a. m. and took sample of sealed tin contain ing mustard oil marked as 'heera brand'. On enquiry, the accused disclosed that he had purchased the oil tin from Chet Ram Parumal Oil Mill. THE accused also produced cash memo. The Food Inspector had taken the sample in presence of the witnesses and sent it for analysis after observing necessary formalities. On analysis, the mustard oil was found to be adulterated. On receipt of report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector sent a notice in Form 6 to the accused and also to the applicant, who is manufacturer. After obtaining sanction and observing other formalities, the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the accused, from whose shop the sample was taken and also against the applicant as manufacturer. The learned Magistrate by the im pugned order dated 29-9-84 summoned the applicant. Feeling Aggrieved, the manufacturer M/s Chet Ram Parumal Oil Mill, Purani Machis Factory, Bareilly, has preferred this revision.
(3.) I have heard Mr. B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. In spite of notices being served to the opposite party, no counter-affidavit has been filed. The revision is pending since 3-12-84 and about 14 1/2 years have elapsed. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the name of the applicant was not disclosed by the ven dor as required by Section 14 of the Act. No copy of the notice was sent by the Food Inspector in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the applicant also referred to Section 14 of the Act, which requires the manufacturer not to sell any article of food to any vendor unless he also gives a warranty in writing in the prescribed form about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor. Sec tion 14 of the Act, further provides that the bill, cash memorandum or invoice given by the manufacturer shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer. Learned counsel for the applicant con tended that the applicant had neither given any warranty nor any bill, cash memorandum or invoice to the vendor nor the vendor had purchased the oil-tins from it, therefore, the applicant could not be tried. It was next contended by the learned counsel that in the absence of any evidence available on the record or collected by the Food Inspector, the applicant could not be summoned. The learned counsel also referred to Section 20-A of the Act which empowers the Magistrate to summon the manufacturer at any stage of the trial if any evidence is adduced before him that the manufacturer is also concerned with the offence. Learned Additional Government Advocate could not point out any evidence indicating involvement of the ap plicant in the crime.;