V. N. KAMDAR AND ANOTHER versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 157 · Decided: 01-05-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: I.D. DUA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
V. N. KAMDAR AND ANOTHER 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
May 1, 1973 
[K. K. MATHEW AND I. D. DUA, JJ.J 
157 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Ss. 20 and 20A-·Vendor ac-
fuhted on plea tlrat he purchased under warranty-In order to <pvoid multipli-
city of trials warrantor should be tried along with vendor-But no1r-impleaJment 
of warrantor at trial of vendor does not bar subsequent separate prosecution of 
l\.'arrantor. 
R who was tried for an offence under s. 16 read with s. 7 of the Prevention 
of Food Adulteration Act, 
1954, stated in Court that he had purchased the 
curry-powder rn question in sealed tins from the appellant under a warranty 
given by them and that he sold 
the curry-powder in the same condition 
in 
which he had purchased it from the appellants. The first appellant was examin-
ed in, the case. He gave evidence that the curry-powder was manufactured by 
the second appell.ant company and that it had been sold in tins to the concern 
of which R was the proprietor. He also admitted the issue of a warranty on 
behalf of the second appellant. In the light of this evidence R was acquitted. 
Subsequently the appellants were sought to be tried for issuing a false warranty. 
The appellants contended that the proceedings against them should be quashed 
as according to the provisions of the Act, they ought to have been impleaded 
in the proceedings against R. 
The High Court concurred with the conclusions 
of the Courts below and held that the fact that the appellants were 
not 
im-
pleaded and tried along with R was no bar to the prosecution of the appellants. 
In appeal by special leave. this Court had to consider the effect of Ss. 20 and 
20A vf the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: (1) There is no provision in the Act which obliged the Food Ins-
pector to have joined the appellants as parties to the complaint filed; against R. 
Section 20 of the Act has nothing to do with the matter. On the other hand 
s. 19(3) which says that any person by \Vhom a warranty is alleged to have 
been given shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and give evidence, seems. 
to-proceed on the assumption that it is not obligatory on the part of the Food 
Inspector to join the mapufacturer. distributor or dealer in a complaint agains1 
a person for an offenCe alleged to have been committed under the Act. (lbUH~01 
(ii) Section 20A. is an enabling one. There is nothing mandatory about 
it. It is left to the discretion of t:;~ Magistrate whether. iri a particular case,. 
having regard to the evidence adduc'.."d, it is necessary, in the interest' of justice,. 
to implead the manufacturer, distributor, dealer as the case may be. 
[161Bl 
The normal i;ule under the Criminal Procedure Code is to try each accused 
·separately when the offence committed by. him is distinct and separate. 
The 
provisions of Ss. 233 to 239 would indicate that joint trial is the exception. 
Section 5(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that the provision of 
that Code will apply to trial of an offence under any law other than the Indian 
Penal Code subject to any enactment for the time being in force. regulating the 
manner or place of investigating, 
inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing. 
with such offence. If that be so, unless there is something in s. 20A which 
creates an exception to the normal procedure prescribed by the 
Criminal Pro-
cedure Code, there would be no justification for importipg into the section by 
implication an absolute obligation to implead the manufacturer... distributor or 
dealer and try him also with the person \Vho is alleged to have committed an-
offence under the Act. in the sense that if the manufacturer. distributor or 
dealer is not impleaded a·nd tried under the provisions of s. 20A, a separate trial 
would be barred. [161D-GJ 
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati 
Ganeswara 
Rao and Another> 
[196413 S.C.R. 297, 324, referred to. 
158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974 J 1 S.C.R. 
The reul purpose of s. 20A is to avoid, as far as possible, conflicting :find-
A 
ing-:;. 
Jn order to avoid n1ultiplicity of proceedings and conflict of finding5 it is 
imperative that the J\lagistrate should in1plead these persons under s. 20A \Vhen-
ever the conditions Jaid down in the section are satisfied. It is a f<ir crv fron1 
this to say that if thi~ is not done. 
the n1anufacturer, 
distributor or· dealer, 
\\'ould get .1n in1munity fron1 a separate prosecLition. 
[162E, Gj 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.