AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been summoned merely on an application of a hotel owner from whom sample of butter was taken. He relied on Omparkash Shivprakash v. K.I. Kuriakose, 1999(4) Recent Criminal Reports 817 and submits that unless ingredients of Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are complied with, summoning of dealer or manufacturer is not justified.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on M/s Murlidhar Shyamlal v. State of Assam, 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 666 in support of his contention that unless the sample is taken in a sealed position and there is a warranty by the manufacturer or dealer to the retailer, the liability of the dealer or manufacturer is not attracted.
Section 20A of the Act confers power on the trial Court to summon any manufacturer or distributor or dealer or a vendor, if the Court is satisfied that such a manufacturer, distributor or dealer was concerned with taht offence and in such a case, the Court can proceed against such manufacturer, distributor or dealer. The object of the said provision is to ensure that the manufacturer or distributor or dealer, if concerned with an offence, is not left out and Section 20A of the Act enables a simultaneous trial against a manufacturer, distributor or dealer avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. Only requirement is that the trial should have begun and the Court should be satisfied that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer was concerned with the offence.
A perusal of impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate has not recorded any satisfaction about manufacturer or dealer being concerned about the offence, which was a condition precedent. Accordingly, order of the learned Magistrate is quashed without prejudice to a fresh order being passed, if necessary. The contention of the petitioner that for involvement of manufacturer or dealer, sample should have been taken in a sealed position and there should be evidence of warranty to the retailer will also be considered by the trial Court, if the manufacturer or dealer is to be proceeded against.
The petition is disposed of.
JUDGMENT accordingly.