MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus R. SAHARI,GENL.MANAGER, DAURALA SUGAR MILLS, DAURALA & ORS ETC.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 625 · Decided: 23-03-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
v. 
R. SAHARI,GENL.MANAGER,DAURALA 
SUGAR MILLS, DAURALA & ORS ETC. 
March 23, 1979 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
625 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act-Sections 20 
& 
20-A-Scope of 
Toffees sold by a vendor to a Focxl Inspector having been found to b_e 
adulterated, prosecution was launched against him. The vendor produced a 
warranty in the Trial Court as a result of which he was acquitted by 
the 
11agistrate. 
Th~ Magistrate however directed notice· to the respondents under 
A 
B 
section 20-A for being impleaded and prosecuted on the grounds that the articles 
C 
manufactured and distributed by 
them 
were adulterated. 
On revision, 
the 
Session Judge dismissed the same but on further revision to the High Court, 
it allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Magistrate. 
In the other two Criminal Appeals Nos. 166 & 167 of 1972, the appellants 
were i.mpleaded under section 20A before the acquittal of the last seller and 
that Order was upheld by the High Court. On the question whether the 
magistrate was entitled to implead the distributors or manufacturers under s. 20A 
even after acquitting the seller on the ground that he was protected by n 
warranty. 
Disn1i.ssing the appeals 
HELD : 1be opening lines of section 20A clearly contemplate a contingency 
where the discretionary jurisdiction under this Act can be exercised only during 
the trial 1Jf any offence, i.e. the stage at which the magistrate can exercise his 
jurisdiction under this section must be before the trial has concluded and ended 
in acquittal or conviction. 
A combined reading of section 20A and 20 is 
that where a distributor or manufacturer or any other person is implee.ded in 
the course of a trial, the obligation to get a fresh sanction for such a person 
is dispensed with and the sanction obtained for the last seller in the trial, will 
-ensure for the benefit of the prosecution of the other person impl'eaded. There· 
fore protectiC'n of section 20 is not available if the parties conCemed are im~ 
plead'ed aft~r the trial was over. 
The special statutory concessioo is given to 
the prosecution only if the conditions mentioned in s. 20A are fulfilled and 
not otherwise. 
[627B-C, F-HJ 
V. N. Kamdar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [1974] 
S.C.R. 
157 
followed. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 152-
153 of 1972. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28-10-1970 of Delhi High 
Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 426/68 and 5/70. 
AND 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 166-167 OF 1972 
From the Judglitent and Order dated 28-10-1970 of Delhi High 
Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 72-73/68. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ff 
A 
626 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 3 s.c.R. 
Soli J. Sorabji, Addi. Sol. Genl. of India, B. P. Maheshwari and 
Suresh Sethi for the Appellant in Cr!. A. Nos. 152-153/72. 
V. M. Tarkunde, S. C. Malik and B. R. Agarwal<i for RR 4 in Cr!. 
A. 152/72. 
B 
H. K. Pun for RR. 3 in Cr!. A.153 /72. 
Mrs. Urmila Sirur for RR. 3 in Cr!. A. No. 152/72. 
B. K. Jaggi for the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 166-167/72. 
H. S. Marwah and M. N. Shroff for RR. in Cr!. A. Nos. 166-167 / 
72. 
C 
B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi for the Intervener. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F AZAL Au, J. 
These appeals by certificate arise out of a com-
mon Judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi and will be dis-
posed of by ns by one judgment. In Appeals Nos. 152-153/72, one 
Gian Singh sold toffees to the Food Inspector and as the toffees were 
found to be adulterated, ·a prosecution was launched against him under 
S. 7 /16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration AC!. Gian Singh, how-
ever, productd in course of the trial a warranty given by the distri-
butons and manufacturers as a result of which the Magistrate acquit-
ted accused Gian Singh. After having acquitted 
Gian Singh, 
t!Je 
Magistrate issned notice under S. 20A against the Respondents 
for 
being iropleaded and prosecution on the gound that the articles manu-
factured by the distributors were adulterated. The respondents went 
up in revision to the Sessions Judge which was dismissed. But on fur-
ther revision to the High Court the High Court allowed the petition 
and set aside the order of the Magistrate impleading the respondei;its. 
In the other two appeals i.e. Cr!. Appeals Nos. 166 and 167/1972, 
the manufadurers were impleaded under S. 20A before the acquittal' 
of the last s~ller and that order was upheld by th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.