Ram Kumar vs Municipal Corporation And Anr.
1970 Latest Caselaw 263 Del

ORDER

M.R.A. Ansari, J.

1. One Jagat Narain was being prosecuted in the court of the Magistrate, 1st Class. Delhi, for an offence Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for storing for sale honey which was found to be adulterated. During the course of the trial the said Jagat Narain raised a plea that he had purchased the honey from M/s. Honit Private Ltd. of which the petitioner herein was the Managing Director under proper warranty. On the strength of the evidence led by Jagat Narain the learned Magistrate accepted the plea raised by him Under Section 19 (2) of the Act and acquitted Jagat Narain of the offence with which he was charged. But while acquitting Jagat Narain the learned Magistrate in exercise of his powers Under Section 20-A of the Act directed that the petitioner as well as the Company of which he was the Managing Director and another person Shri Parmodh Kumar, salesman of the said Company be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He issued summons to the petitioner and the other person for their appearance in Court on 29th July, 1970. Against this order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and one of the contentions raised by him was that the trial of Jagat Narain had come to an end when the learned Magistrate pronounced the judgment acquitting him and that no order Under Section 20-A of the Act impleading the petitioner and the others could be validly passed. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept this contention and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

2. The point at issue is now concluded so far as this Court is concerned by a Full Bench decision of this Court in (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1968 and other connected matters decided on 28th October, 1970 (Delhi) ) to which I was also a party. It has been held that "it is clear from the language of Section 20-A of the Act that this Section can be invoked only during the trial of the vendor and that it cannot be invoked after the trial of the vendor has concluded either by his discharge or acquittal". In one of the cases before the Full Bench namely Criminal Revision No. 426 of 1963 the vendor alone was prosecuted for an offence Under Section 7/16 of the Act and during the trial he took the plea that he had purchased the article of food in question from the distributor under a warranty. The learned Magistrate accepted this plea of the vendor and acquitted him. At the same time he imp leaded the distributor, the manufacturer and their representatives Under Section 20-A of the Act. It was held that the trial of the vendor must be deemed to have concluded when the learned Magistrate acquitted him and that thereafter there was no question of the manufacturer etc. being jointly tried with the vendor. The order of the learned Magistrate Under Section 20-A of the Act was therefore quashed.

3. In the present case also the trial of Jagat Narain must be deemed ito have concluded when the learned 'Magistrate acquitted him. Although the learned Magistrate passed the order -Under Section 20-A of the Act by the same judgment by which he had acquitted Jagat Narain his trial would have ended before the trial of the petitioner and others had commenced. What the learned Magistrate ought to have done was to have passed the order Under Section 20-A of the Act without acquitting Jagat Narain. The proper stage when an order Under Section 20-A has to be passed is when from the evidence in the case of the vendor the Court is satisfied that the manufacturer, distributor or the dealer are also concerned with the offence for which the vendor was being tried.

4. The order Under Section 20-A of the Act passed against the petitioner is therefore quashed and the petition is allowed.