AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Punchhi, J.
This is a petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, in which prayer has been made to quash the complaint dated 1st June, 1984, on which the Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued, process on 3rd July, 1984.
The petitioner Dalima Dairy Industries Limited, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) has been arraigned as one of the accused in a complaint under section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It is alleged in the complaint that the Food Inspector inspected the shop of Kishan Chand coaccused and found him displaying for sale 5 tins of Sapan ghee, 500 grams each. The Food Inspector purchased three tins of 500 grams each of the said ghee in accordance with the rules. The ghee was found to be adulterated. On these premises he prayed in the complaint as follows :
"As Shri (1) Kishan Chand (2) Manager/Director of Dalmia Dairy Industries, Bharatpur have committed an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, action may kindly be taken against him under section 16(1)(a) (i) of the said Act. The case may kindly be tried under Section 16A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in a summary way."
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the vendor has so far not set up any warranty under section 14A of the aforesaid Act, thus no connection between the vendor and the petitioner stands established. He further contends that till such connection was alleged or indicated on the file, the learned Magistrate should not have issued process against him under Section 22A of the Act. On the bare allegation of the Food Inspector, he contends, complaint against the petitioner cannot proceed.
As against this, it has been brought to my notice State of Punjab v. Devinder Kumar and Ors, 1984(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 21 : 1983 CAR (SC) 306, a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, where their Lordships have quoted with approval Bhagwan Dass Jagdish Chander v. Delhi Administration, 1975 (Supp.) SCR 30, and laid emphasis on the following words :
"On the other hand, there seems no logically sound reasons why, if a distributor or a manufacturer can be subsequently impleaded under Section 20A of the Act, he cannot be joined as a coaccused initially in a joint trial if the allegations made justify such a course."
Their Lordships have also observed therein that the interference of High Court in such cases should be only in those cases which are exceptional in character where continuance of prosecution would have resulted either in waste of public time and money or in grave prejudice to the accused concerned.
When evidence is led, nothing stops the vendor to establish the connection between him and the distributor/manufacturer by methods well known to law. If that situation is visualised, the observations aforequoted in Bhagwan Dass Jagdish Chander''s case (supra) fully carry out the purposes of the Act. But if on the other hand, the establishment of the connection is neither attempted to by the prosecution nor by the vendor, the suspected manufacturer or distributor would be gravely prejudiced in having to face a trial and be harassed unnecessarily. Their Lordships view in the said report also is that adulteration and misbranding of food stuffs are rampant evils in our country and the Act is brought into force to check the social evils in the larger public interest for ensuring public welfare. Misbranding of food article or putting fake name or label thereof on the container of food, so as to pass the guilt on to another, is also rampant. The Act undoubtedly postulates trials not only of dealers or vendors, but alongwith them of manufacturers or distributors and commission agents of the adulterated food stuff also. I suppose the ratio of the Supreme Court case covers the cases of those persons also who are ex facie suspected to be manufacturers etc. of the food article on the suggestion of the name on the package. In this view of the matter, I find nothing exceptional, which would impel me to quash the proceedings at this stage. This petition is accordingly dismissed.