IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 428 of 2007() ------------------------------------------- CC.491/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 5TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------- DILEEP KUMAR, RAHUL PHARMA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SOMAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, KARUNAGAPPALLY CIRCLE. 2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO. 428 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Order passed by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Karunagappally on Crl.M.P. No.10636 of 2006 in C.C. No.491 of 1995 refusing to implead M/s. Deep Pharma, Indore as additional accused on the request of petitioner/accused No.5 is under challenge in this revision. 2. Heard counsel for petitioner and Public prosecutor. 3. The Food Inspector inspected premises of M/s.Vinod Medical Stores on 4.1.1995 and purchased olive oil from accused No.1). At the time of sampling accused No.1 told Food Inspector that he purchased olive oil from Saranya Agencies, supplier of which accused No.2 is the proprietor as per bill dated 2.1.1995 and its manufacturer is accused No.3. Sample was found to be adulterated. Prosecution was launched against accused Nos.1 to 3. On the application of accused No.2 accused No.4 was impleaded under Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, “the Act”). Petitioner/accused No.5 was impleaded on the application of accused No.4. Petitioner was examined as defence witness and he produced the cash bill-warranty said to have been issued to him by CRL. R.P. No.428 of 2007 -: 2 :- M/s.Deep Pharma. Petitioner filed C.M.P.No.10636 of 2006 to implead M/s.Deep Pharma as accused contending that he purchased olive oil from M/s.Deep Pharma on 27.8.1994 as per the cash bill-warranty produced in the trial court. Learned magistrate considered the request and held that defence of petitioner under Sec.19 of the Act can be considered even if his distributor is not impleaded under Sec.20A of the Act provided, he proved the requirements of Sec.19(2) of the Act. Accordingly petition was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in V.N. Kamdar v. Municipal Corpn. Delhi (1973 (2) SCC 207). Learned counsel referred me to the observations in paragraph 10 of the judgment as to the purpose of enacting Sec.20A in the Act. 5. This case is of the year 1995. It is not disputed before me and learned magistrate also has observed that even without impleading M/s.Deep Pharma as requested by the petitioner it is open to the petitioner to seek protection of Sec.19(2) of the Act. That being the position, there is no reason to interfere with the order challenged. I make it clear that it will be open to the magistrate to consider invocation of Sec.20A of the Act in case such a course of action is CRL. R.P. No.428 of 2007 -: 3 :- found necessary in accordance with the defence of the petitioner in the course of evidence. This revision is dismissed with the above observation. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1269 of 2007 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv