LexDELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. v. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954/Code of Criminal Proce- dure, 1973: S.20-A/s. 319(3)-Prosecution of other persons than accused-Accused found selling adulterated vanaspati ghee-Trial--Evidence indicating that appellant was manufacturer of adulterated a1ticle-lssuance of summons to manufacturer-Held, Court is empowered to proceed agaiiist such manufac- turer, distributor or dealer alongwith the person already before the Court, as D if prosecution has initially been instituted against said manufacturer etc. under s.20 notwithstanding anything contained in s.319(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. E F Doctrine of autref ois acquit-Significance. The appellant was a manufacturer of Vanaspati ghee. One person selling the Vanaspati ghee was prosecuted for an offence under s.16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as the article of food was found to have been adulterated. When it was brought to the notice of the trial court that the appellant was the manufacturer of the adulterated article of food, the Magistrate issued summons to the appellant under s.20A of the Act. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the said order before the Sessions Court as well as before the High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeal by special leave. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that though the G magistrate had power, on the date when the complaint was lodged before him, to issue summons to the manufacturer, but he could not proceed during the trial on the premise that the accused was only a dealer of the appellant; that there was no material that the accused was not a vendor, it could not be jointly tried. It was also contended that the accused being H a dealer of the appellant, s.20A of the Act had no application as the section 566 DELHI CLOTH AND GEN. MILLS CO. LTD. v. STATE 567 provides for trial of a person not being a dealer. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. There was no embargo on the Magistrate during the trial of the offence to issue notice to the appellant manufacturer for holding joint trial. Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 clearly provides that during the trial for any of the offences under the act alleged to have been committed by any person, when it comes to the notice of the Magistrate, from the evidence adduced, that the manufac· turer, distributor or dealer of that article of food, which is the subject mater of adulteration, is also concerned with the offence, then the Court may proceed against such manufacturer, distributor or dealer as if prosecution has initially been instituted against him under section 20 of the Act. [571-8, 570-C] A B c 1.2. 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 D food. In view of the language of Section 20A of the Act, whatever is contained in sub-section (3) of Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 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 20A, Joint trial for the same offence is permitted. The object appears to be that in a case where common evidence discloses that the manufacturer, dis- tributor or dealer is also concerned with the offence for which the prosecu- tion 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 autref ois acquit the Legislature introduced s.20A to have joint trial. (570-C, E-G] 1.3. 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 offence under the Act. It cannot, therefore, be introduced in a trial for the offence under the Act. (570-B] 2. Section 20A of the Act has mentioned about trial of commission of the offence by any person; and if that person be not the manufacturer, dis- tributor or dealer, s.20A permits trial of such manufacturer, distributor or dealer also, alongwith the person already before the court. So, the fact that the person being tried is a dealer would not make the section E F G non-operational. (570-H, 571-Al H 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.