Criminal Revision No. 1198 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1198 of 2008 Date of Decision: 14.8.2008 Arun Kumar Roy …Petitioner Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.S.Mehandiratta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ashima Mor, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Arun Kumar Roy, petitioner, is a nominee of M/s Nestle India Limited, manufacturer of Nescafe Instant Coffee. Case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector took a sample from vendor R.K.Mehra. The same was sent to the Public Analyst and as per report of Public Analyst, sample do not conform to the standards prescribed and was held to be adulterated. R.K.Mehra when appeared had moved an application on which dealer M/s Pooja Agencies was summoned to stand trial. M/s Pooja Agencies appeared through one Sat Parkash and filed an application for impleading M/s Nestle India Limited which was earlier Criminal Revision No. 1198 of 2008 2 known as M/s Food Specialties Limited. The application was allowed and M/s Nestle India Limited was summoned as accused being manufacturer. Inter-alia it has been contended that the procedure followed by the Court in invoking Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”) was not in accordance with the spirit of Section 20-A of the Act. It has been stated that cash memo or bill which can be construed as a warranty has not been produced within the terms of proviso to Section 14 of the Act. Therefore, there is a lacuna in the case of the prosecution to prove warranty, from which the immunity shall flow to the vendor. It has been further submitted that, procedure for invoking Section 20-A of the Act has been spelt out by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Omparkash Shivparkash v. K.I. Kuriakose 1999(4) Recent Criminal Reports 817 (SC) and the same has been followed. Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Moti Singh v. Haryana State and Another Criminal Misc. No. M-2177 of 2007 decided on 28.7.2008 to contend that without recording of any evidence from which it could be deciphered that the petitioner is a manufacturer, petitioner could not be impleaded as additional accused. It has been further contended that Public Analyst report has failed to give the date of manufacturing of product and in the present case, it is not a case of the prosecution that rule 32(f) of the Act has been violated. The report of the Public Analyst has been also challenged on the ground that the sample has been tested qua A.08.04 which in the present case is not attracted. Criminal Revision No. 1198 of 2008 3 The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. No. 741-M of 1992 which was decided by this Court on 2.2.2000. The same was decided by My Lord Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.H.B.Chalapathi (as he then was) and the following order was passed:- “Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Rai, Standing counsel for U.T. Chandigarh. T.H.B. Chalapathi, J (Oral) This petition is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the offence under the offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. At this stage, I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings. It is, therefore, open to the petitioner to raise all the pleas raised in this before the Trial Court. The Trial Court is directed to dispose the case as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- T.H.B.Chalapathi Judge. February 2, 2000”. Ms. Ashima Mor, at this stage, has stated that in the present case, entire evidence has been concluded and the case is at the final stage. It will not be appropriate, when the trial Court is seized off the matter then this Court cause interference. All arguments available to the Criminal Revision No. 1198 of 2008 4 petitioner can be raised during the course of the arguments. Needless to say that the Courts shall be guided by the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Om Parkash Shiv Parkash's case (supra) to determine whether Section 20-A of the Act in this case was rightly invoked or not. The petitioner, if so advised, may raise all arguments which have been raised in this petition along with other arguments available to him. Since the petitioner has assailed the impugned order (Annexure P1) dated 30.4.2008, this Court has refrained itself to comment upon the merits of the impugned order on the ground that the trial is at the final stage. It is expected that the trial Court while deciding the case finally shall not take into consideration any observations made earlier in the order (Annexure P1). With these observations, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 14, 2008 “DK”