S.S.DIWAN, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (for short the code (Jang Bahadur has sought the quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent through a complaint dated 6th June 1980, and in which the petitioner had been summoned by the trial Court for 9th July, 1980.
(2.) WITHOUT going into the details of the complaint, in substance the allegations therein amount to these that Dr. Balraj Sharma visited the shop of Rule Mal, Kariana Merchant, Baghapurana, District Faridkot on 23 -11 -1979. and purchased a sample of chillies powder AGMARK marked for analysis. The public analyst this report found the sample to be adulterated being unfit for human consumption. The Food Inspector filed a complaint filed a complaint against Rud Mal and also against Jang Bahadur petitioner and Ravi Uppal partners in Jyoti Spices, as co -accused on the assumption that the chillies powder AGMARK purported to have been packed and sold by the wholesaler to the retailer, the petitioner company too was liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (here -in -after referred as the act) On the date fixed in the complaint, the learned Magistrate without examining the complainant, summoned the retail -dealer as also the two partners of the wholesaler Company as accused and hence this petition by Jang Bahadur.
(3.) THE only question pressed upon me by the petitioner's counsel is, whether the complaint could proceed against the retail -dealer as also the manufacturer simultaneously. There is an authority for the proposition that the retail -dealer in the first instance has to set up a defence of warranty that the purchased the article of food from another and sold it to the Food Inspector in the condition in which he purchased it. Now in the instant case, it is not clear whether any such warranty was put -forth at the time when the Food Inspector purchased the article of food in the process of sampling it. Thus in the situation, it could not be assumed by the Food Inspector that the article of food was manufactured by the petitioner's Company. This obviously is a matter of evidence. For the purpose section 20 -A of the Act takes adequate care conferring powers on the Court to implead manufactures etc. It may well be quoted here : "S. 20 -A. Where at any time during trial of any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by any person, not being the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, the Court is satisfied on the evidence adduced before is, that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with that offence, then the Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub -section (3) of section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 or 1974), or in section 20 proceed against him as though a prosecution had been instituted against him under Section 20. It is clear from the averments made in the petition and which have not been controverted that no evidence was led by the prosecution which could give an occasion to the trial Court to employ the provisions of S -20 -A of the Act. It seems that it was assumed that the petitioner is the manufacturer Crl. M. 589 -C 83 manufacturer of the adulterated article and the retail -dealer had the necessary warrantly. Prima facie from the averments made in the complaint, no such specific plea is forthcoming. Thus in the instant case, the petitioner being impleaded as accused for the present, does not arise. Accordingly the order summoning the petitioner and his partner as accused, has thus to be quashed, letting the proceedings to continue against the retail dealer, who is not a contending party in these proceedings. For the present, the name of the petitioner and his partner Ravi Uppal in the complaint has thus obviously to be treated as non -existent for the view I have taken. For these reasons, the petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Petition allowed.;