IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.14143 of 2006 ***** Omprakash Jain Sonawat, S/o Late Sohan Lal Sonawat, resident of Sonali Chowk, Gulabbag, P.S. Sadar, District Purnea. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Food Inspector, Block Katihar. …. …. Opposite parties ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Senior Advocate Mr. P.C. Agrawal, Advocate For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. ------------- 9. 6.5.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 7.6.2000 by virtue of which the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar has taken cognizance against the petitioner and issued summons under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) in Complaint Case No. BIII 1/97. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order taking cognizance is bad in law because the same is in violation of Section 20A of the Act. The said submission is based on the fact that the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner on the basis of a statement made by one Parmeshwar Bhagat, who was earlier sought to be prosecuted for similar offences in the case in question. On his statement that the salt in question has been purchased from the petitioner’s company cognizance has been taken and summons issued. Petitioner submits that in terms of the provisions under Section 20A the power can only be exercised provided evidence and sufficiency of - 2 - material emerge during course of trial, which is similar and akin to Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. From perusal of the entire order-sheet it is evident that no evidence has been led though the prosecution relates to the year 1997 and the witnesses have been directed to appear only after 18.7.2006. The entire order-sheet has been brought on record in support of what has been urged. It is also stated that the order taking cognizance is in violation of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omprakash Shivprakash v. K.I.Kuriakose, 2000 Cr. Law Journal 26. With these limited submission and the verification of the record and the order-sheet, petitioner has made out a case for interference, impugned order dated 7.6.2000 is hereby quashed. Further liberty is given to the Court below that in case evidence does merge during the course of trial at a subsequent stage then the Court will be well advised to do the follow-up action under the law. The application stands allowed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)