S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court nder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the order whereby summons were issued to him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, on September 30, 1982 in the following circumstances.
(2.) DR . Gurdip Singh, Food Inspector, visited the shop of Bishan Dass accused, situated at Sangrur, on 5.5.1982 and purchased a sample of 'Paris Tomato Ketchup' for analysis and after completing usual formalities, sent one of the sample for analysis. On examination, it was found that it was contaminated with coliforn bacteria. It is alleged that at the time of purchased the Tomato Ketchup from M/s. Paris Food and Chemical Industries, Dehradun. The Food Inspector filed a complaint against Bishan Dass and the petitioner Amarjit Singh on 22.9.1982 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, alongwith the documents. On 30.9.1982 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after going through the complaint and other documents found a prima facie case under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act) and accordingly summoned the petitioner alongwith Bishan Dass for 26.10.1982. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued with little persistence that M/s. Paris Food and Chemical Industries were allegedly the manufacturers of the food product of which sample was taken and the petitioner could only be proceeded against under Section 20-A of the Act, which gives powers to the trial Court to proceed against the manufacturer only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and this could only be done during the course of trial against the original vendor when the complainant had led some evidence to the effect that M/s. Paris Food and Chemical Industries were the manufacturers of the Tomato Ketchup and the petitioner was responsible for the same. It was contended that nothing such having been done, the trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to summon the petitioner.
(3.) IT is an admitted fact that the prosecution against the petitioner is not under Section 20 of the Act. It is only under Section 20-A of the Act, under which, the Magistrate could exercise the power. In order to see how and when the power can be exercised under this Section, it would be proper to reproduce the Section itself and the same is as under :- "Where at any time during the 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 it, 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, or in Section 20 proceed against him as though a prosecution had been instituted against him under Section 20." ;