JOSHI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) S. B. Cri. Misc. Pet. No. 759/96 has been filed by Pawan Kumar against the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh dated 25. 1. 1984 taking cognizance against the petitioner and for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in State vs. Poonamchand & Ors. S. B. Cri. Misc. Pet. No. 473/96 has been filed by Bhanwar Lal for quashing the proceedings against him in criminal case No. 605/83 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh. Thus, both the petitions have been filed in relation to criminal original case No. 605/83 pending in the trial Court. The brief facts of the case are that Dr. R. S. Choudhary, the Food Inspector and Chief Medical & Health Officer purchased a sample of `til oil' from M/s. Poonamchand Pawankumar, Sujangarh on 14. 4. 1980 and he took three samples from the same as prescribed by the Rules and sent one sample to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst in his report submitted that the sample was not found conforming to the standard prescribed for Til oil. Therefore, the Food Inspector filed a complaint against M/s. Poonamchand Pawankumar and its working partner Poonam Chand for an offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "act" hereinafter) on 19. 6. 1981 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, who took the cognizance against the accused and ordered issue of process. The case was then transferred to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh. On 4. 11. 1981, accused Poonam Chand filed an application under Sec. 17 (1) of the Act to take cognizance against other partners in firm M/s. Poonamchand Pawankumar also being vicariously liable for the so called sale of Til oil to the Food Inspector. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh vide impugned order accepted the application filed by Poonamchand and took cognizance against other partners of the firm M/s. Poonamchand Pawankumar, namely Malchand, Bhanwarlal, Pawan Kumar and Smt. Vimla Devi and they were ordered to be summoned as accused in the case. It is relevant to mention here that proceedings against Malchand and Poonamchand were dropped vide order dated 23. 6. 1995 of the trial Court as they died during the trial. It is also relevant to mention here that no further proceedings have and could not be taken on the complaint and it is at the stage, which was on 25. 1. 1984. Against the order of taking cognizance, accused Smt. Vimla Devi filed a revision petition in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Churu, which was later on transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Ratangarh, was dismissed vide order dated 18. 3. 1984.
(3.) BOTH the petitions were admitted by this Court on 18. 12. 1996. Heard Mr. G. L. Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner Pawan Kumar and Mr. Sunil Mehta for the petitioner Bhanwarlal and Mr. D. D. Kalla, learned Public Prosecutor. Both the counsels argued on the same line. It was argued by the learned counsel that once cognizance had been taken by the learned Magistrate against the firm M/s. Poonamchand Pawankumar on 19. 6. 1981 for an offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Act, no cognizance against other accused persons could be taken prior to the state under Sec. 319 Cr. P. C. unless evidence had been taken by the trial wherefrom it could be said that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the accused. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners on the basis of partnership deed filed before him. As per argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners the order of taking cognizance against the accused- petitioners is illegal and abuse of the process of the Court. ;