IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO 18 of 2011 Date of Decision 1st July ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Shamsher Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. For Respondent No.3: None. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Manali impleading the petitioner as one of the accused in the pending case. The order is terse, which reads: “27.11.2010………. This order shall disposed of application under section 20 of PFA Act. It has been averred that applicant has wrongly been implicated in the 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 aforesaid case and one Sh. Shamsher Singh and Prem Singh are the necessary parties. It has been prayed that the application be allowed and accused Shamsher Singh and Prem Singh be summoned. Reply to this application has been filed by the Food Inspector in which she has stated that she has got no objection if the application is allowed and the accused persons namely Shemsher Singh and Prem Singh are impleaded as party. Since the averments made by the application have not been rebutted, as such, Shamsher Singh and Prem Singh are arrayed as accused. Be summoned for 26.2.2011……..” The learned Magistrate should have been aware of the fact that impleading a person in proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is not a matter of consent by the State, but dependant upon the evidence to be led during the proceedings. I need not elaborate on the law as it has now been settled by a number of decisions. There must be some evidence/material on record to indicate that the person impleaded is primafacie involved of offences as alleged. I find no such application of mind on the part of learned Magistrate. This order is accordingly quashed and set aside. A direction is issued to the learned trial Court that it shall take up application under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act afresh and then proceed in accordance with law to ascertain from the evidence as to whether primafacie the petitioner herein or any other person is required to be impleaded in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of. July 1st , 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 3