B.S.YADAV,J - (1.) THE facts leading to this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, by Dilar Singh are that on 8th December, 1981 P.W.1 Dr. Kuldeep Singh, invested with the powers of Food Inspector inspected the shop in which the business under the state 'Sindhi Shop' was being carried on Nanak Chand was found present on the shop. After observing due formalities, Dr. Kuldip Singh purchased 600 grams of Haldi powder from a bag lying at the shop. After complying with the other relevant provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who vide report Exhibit opined that rice structure was seen alongwith Haldi structure on a macro and micro analysis. Total starch found present was 52.05%. The other date is not relevant for the purpose of the disposal of this petition. Thereafter the prosecution was launched against Nanak Chand. The statement of P.W.1 Dr. Kuldip Singh was recorded on 12th December, 1982 on which date he proved the spot memo Exhibit PA in which there is a mention of a bill No. 1066, dated 28th November, 1981 issued by M/s Bhagwan Singh Kartar Singh. In his statement he further stated that Exhibit DA was the same bill which was shown to him at the spot. He also stated that the bag containing Haldi powder was stiched and contained full quantity as mentioned in the bill Exhibit DA. Nanak Chand filed application dated 18th October, 1982 under section 20-A of the Act for summoning M/s Bhagwan Singh Kartar Singh and Dilar Singh. In the application the accused had stated that the goods had been sold by Dilar Singh, who was managing the affairs of the Firm and the bill was signed by him (i.e. Dilar Singh) and the goods had been stored by him in the same state as it was sold to him and the bag full and closed when the Food Inspector had taken the sample. He also stated that the adulteration, if any, was the responsibility of M/s Bhagwan Singh Kartar Singh and Dilar Singh. Thereupon the court summoned Bhagwan Singh, Kartar Singh as partners of the firm and Dilar Singh. Dr. Kuldip Singh was again examined on 14th March, 1983. The case was fixed for 30th March, 1983 for framing of the charge. After hearing the parties the learned trial Court ordered that Bhagwan Singh and Kartar Singh could to be made liable for the alleged offender as they had not been proved to be the partners of the Firm nor they had been proved to be incharge of the management of the Firm's business and, therefore, they could not be attributed knowledge about the quality of the substance sold. He accordingly, discharged Bhagwan Singh and Kartar Singh. However, it was held that Dilar Singh accused only could be said to be incharge of the business of the Firm and, therefore, he cold be tried. A charge under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was framed to the effect that the sample of Haldi powder purchased from Nanak Chand by the Food Inspector, which in turn had been sold by Dilar Singh to him (i.e. Nanak Chand) had been found adulterated on analysis as it contained rice starch as admixture. The prosecution evidence was closed on 20th December, 1983. Both Nanak Chand and Dilar Singh were examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. The case was then adjourned to 17th January, 1984 for defence evidence. Nanak Chand filed application for summoning Accountant/Partner of M/s Bhagwan Singh Kartar Singh with certain documents and the record-keeper of the Sales-Tax Department alongwith the declaration form regarding sales-tax submitted by M/s Bhagwan Singh Kartar Singh for the relevant period. No defence evidence could be recorded as service of the witnesses was not effected. The case was adjourned for a couple of times. In the meantime Dilar Singh filed this petition on 9th February, 1984 for quashing the proceedings against him.
(2.) BEFORE proceeding further, I may mention that the petitioner is guilty of concealment of facts. In his petition, he has not at all referred to the order dated 30th March, 1983, passed by the learned trial court by which Bhagwan Singh and Kartar Singh were discharged on the ground that neither they had been proved to be partners of the firm M/s. Bhagwan Singh Kartar Singh nor they has been proved to be incharge of the management of the firm's business. As noticed earlier, Nanak Chand accused's plea is that he had purchased the bag containing Haldi powder from Dilar Singh, petitioner, and it was in the same condition in which he had purchased it at the time the Food Inspector took the sample of Haldi powder from that bag. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that under Section 20-A of the Act, manufacturer distributor or dealer of any article of food can be proceeded against if on the basis of evidence adduced in the trial against the vendor, the Court is satisfied that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer was concerned with the offences. In support of his contention he has cited a couple of authorities and on the basis of that he has argued that a partner or the Managing Director of a firm cannot be joined as an accused in a trial under the Act. It is not necessary to discuss those authorities as that point is undisputed. The Managing Director or a partner of a firm is not supposed to be handling the article of food doing the course of its manufacture. However, if the allegation is to the effect that he is so concerned and handled the article of food during the course of its manufacture then there is no bar in summoning him as an accused under Section 20-A of the Act. It is not necessary to discuss this point in detail as Bhagwan Singh and Kartar Singh who had been summoned as partners were discharged. So far as Dilar Singh, petitioner, is concerned there is no evidence that he was a partners of the firm M/s. Bhagwan Singh Kartar Singh, Even if he was a partner of that firm he could be summoned by the Court on the basis of the evidence produced, i.e. Ex PA and DA, application of Nanak Chand accused that it was Dilar Singh who had sold that bag of Haldi to him.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the evidence produced was not sufficient at that stage for summoning Dilar Singh, petitioner, as the bill/cash memo. Ex. DA is still to be proved. In support of this contention, he relied on Sh. Gopal Krishan and Sh. Krishan Chand v. The State 1975 (1) F.A.C 406. In that case, the trial had not yet commenced when the Court summoned the dealer and the manufacturer under Section 20-A of the Act. As noticed earlier, in the present case the trial has commenced and Ex. DA had been exhibited. Furthermore, the present petition has been filed after the statement of the accused had been recorded under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. In his statement, Nanak Chand had stated that he purchased the bag in question, vide bill Ex. DA, from M/s Bhagwan Singh Kartar Singh. The statement of an accused under Section 313. Cr.P.C. is admissible in evidence in the case. Moreover Nanak Chand has expressed his desire to lead defence evidence. Even if it is presumed that there is any lacuna in the evidence, considering the stage at which the present petition has been filed I do not think it to be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings on that score.;