Case: Delhi Cloth &amp; General Mills Co. Ltd Vs. State Of M.P. And Others

1. By an order dated 1-11-1991 the matter was referred to a Bench of three Judges since an important question of law relating interpretation of Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) as amended by Act 49 of 1964 was raised2. The admitted facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Vanaspati ghee. The position now in dispute is that one Laxmi Narain resident of Joura was found selling Vanaspati ghee. The Food Inspector had purchased the article of food of 1500 grams from Laxmi Narain on payment of the price. On analysis by the Public Analyst as per his report, Ext. P-3, it was found to have been adulterated. In consequence, Laxmi Narain was prosecuted for an offence under Section 16 of the Act3. The article was sold on 24-3-1964. On 1-3-1965 when it was brought to the notice of the trial court that the appellant is the manufacturer of the adulterated article of food, the learned Magistrate had issued summons to the appellant under Section 20-A of the Act. He questioned the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to issue summons by filing a revision before the Sessions Court and also in the High Court. He was unsuccessful before both the courts below. Thus, this appeal by special leave

Court's reasoning:
7. A reading of Section 20-A clearly indicates that during the course of the trial for any of the offences under the Act alleged to have been committed by any person, if the evidence adduced before the court discloses that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with that offence, then the court has been empowered, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) to treat as if the manufacturer, distributor or the dealer is being proceeded against under Section 20 of the Act, as originally instituted thereunder. The concept of vendor and vendee is known to civil law and passing of the title in the goods is alien to the prosecution for an offense under the Act. It cannot, therefore, be introduced in a trial for the offence under the Act. The Act advisedly made a person who sells adulterated article of food liable to be prosecuted for the offence of adulteration of the article of food. During the trial when it comes to the notice of the Magistrate, from the evidence adduced, that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of that article of food, which is the subject-matter of adulteration, is also concerned with the offence, then the court has been empowered to proceed against such manufacturer, distributor or dealer as if prosecution has initially been instituted against him under Section 20 of the Act. In fact, for general offences, Section 319(1) of the Code empowers the court where during the course of enquiry or trial of an offence, if it appears from the evidence that any person not being accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, to proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. In view of the language of Section 20-A of the Act, whatever is contained in sub-section (3) of Section 319 of the Code, would not stand in the way of the Magistrate to proceed at a trial against any person, i.e., the original accused and against others mentioned in Section 20-A. In other words, joint trial for the same offence is permitted. The object appears to be that in a case where common evidence discloses that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with the offence for which the prosecution was launched against a person from whom the article of food was purchased, to avoid multiplicity of prosecution and also keeping in view the doctrine of autrefois acquit the Legislature introduced Section 20-A to have joint trial8. The further contention that Laxmi Narain being a dealer of the appellant, Section 20-A has no application, as it speaks of trial of a person not being, inter alia, a dealer, has no merit, as the section has mentioned about trial of commission of the offence by any person; and, if that person be not the manufacturer, distributor or dealer, Section 20-A permits trial of such manufacturer, distributor or dealer also, along with the person already before the court. So, the fact that the person being tried is a dealer would not make the section non-operational9. In these circumstances, we are of the view that there was no embargo on the Magistrate during the trial of the offence to issue notice to the appellant-manufacturer for holding joint trial