IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 303 of 2010 S.S. Marketing, Khanna Market, Haldwani, Distt. Nainital Through Proprietor Mannu Tandon S/o Sri Sunil Tandon …………..…Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Food Inspector, Prathmik Swasthya Kendra Bel Paroa, Distt. Nainital. 2. Mahesh Rawat S/o Sri Manwar Singh Rawat M/s Quality General Store, R/o Pirumadara, PO Pirumadar, Distt. Nainital. 3. Pawan Kumar S/o Sri Virendra Kumar M/s Metro Sales, R/o Nanda Line Ramnagar, Distt. Nainital. 4. Sri Rakesh Shukla S/o Sri S.S. Shukla R/o 8/22 F.M Colony, Civil Lines Kanpur, Distt. Kanpur Nominee Manufacturing Firm. 5. Shivam Masala Pvt. Ltd. 54/34 Naya Ganj, Kanpur Uttar Pradesh ……….Respondents. Shri Piyush Garg, Advocate present for the petitioner. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short Cr.P.C), the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 05.10.2009 passed by 2 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, in criminal case No. 1424 of 2005, State Vs. Mahesh Rawat and others, relating to offence punishable under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent no. 2, Mahesh Rawat is the person from whom sample of ‘Paras Sabji Masala’ was purchased by the Food Inspector, in which in the contents 3.8% salt, found in the sample, was not disclosed in the packet. It is further pleaded that manufacturer and distributor are already impleaded as parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner, who is supplier is being summoned, now, in the criminal case vide impugned order passed by the Trial Court under section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, merely on the evidence that the petitioner was supplier of the Masla sold by the respondent No. 2. In this connection, attention of the Court is drawn to the principle of law laid down in Ram Krishan Y. Paul vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. 1993, PFAJ page 358, and Smt. Vimladevi Vs. State of M.P. 1990(2) EFR page 156 and it is contended that the trial court has summoned the petitioner without there being sufficient evidence. 3 4. Perusal of the impugned order, which is annexed as Annexure 6 to the petition shows that at the stage of proceeding under section 246 of Cr.P.C., when it was disclosed that the item in question was purchased by the retailer from M/s S.S. Marketing (present petitioner), on application of the retailer the petitioner is summoned. Whether, the evidence is sufficient or not, as to the complicity of the petitioner in the case, is a matter of fact which can be examined by the trial court. This Court is of the view that it is not desirable on the part of this Court to hold only on the basis of the statement of the Food Inspector recorded under section 246 of Cr.P.C. that the petitioner is innocent, or not. 5. Therefore, for the reasons as discussed above, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court. The petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that the petitioner may press the points (raised before this Court), by filing objections before the trial court, before framing of the charge. (Interim Relief Application 324 of 2010 also stands disposed off.) Dt:12.04.2010 parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 4