Judgment

MATHEW, J.:- The Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed a complaint on September 10, 1970, before the. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Delhi, against the appellants under S. 7 read with S. 16 (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter called "the Act", alleging that they gave a false warranty in respect of the curry powder manufactured by them. In response to the summons, the appellants appeared and filed an application for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the complaint was incompetent.

2. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application. The appellants filed a revision from the order to the Additional Sessions Judge. That was dismissed. The appellants then filed a revision against that order before the High Court. The High Court also dismissed the revision. It is against this order that the appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.

3. On November 28, 1968, the Food Inspector went to the shop of one Ram Prakash Oberoi and found that he was storing for sale curry powder. The Food Inspector purchased three sealed tins of curry powder from him and after following the procedure enjoined by the Act, sent one sample to the Public Analyst, who, after examining it, sent his report that the sample was adulterated. A complaint was filed against Ram Prakash Oberoi by the Food Inspector alleging that he committed an offence under S. l6 read with S. 7 of the Act. Ram Prakash Oberoi, in his statement under S. 342, stated that he had purchased the curry powder in sealed tins from the appellants 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 examined in the case. He gave evidence that the curry powder was manufactured by the second appellant company and that it had been sold in tins to the concern of which Ram Prakash Oberoi was the proprietor. He also admitted the issue of a warranty on behalf of the second appellant. In the light of the evidence, Ram Prakash Oberoi was acquitted, as, according to the Magistrate, he had fully discharged the onus which lay upon him in order to avail himself of the defence under Section 19 (2) of the Act. In the concluding portion of the judgment, which was pronounced on October 25, 1969, the Magistrate observed that it is open to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi "to institute a complaint against the warrantor concerned for issuing a false warranty for the sale of adulterated curry powder to M/s. T. D. Bhagwan Dass, the proprietor of which was accused Ram Prakash Oberoi through bill Ex. DW1 /A out of which a sample hearing No. DN. 2385 was taken by P.W. 2 from Ram Prakash Oberoi".

4. The contention of the appellants in the application before the Magistrate to quash the proceedings was that they ought to have been impleaded in the proceedings against Ram Prakash Oberoi and tried for the offence alleged to have been committed by them and, that not having been done, the complaint was barred.

5. The High Court concurred with the conclusions of the Courts below and held that the fact that the appellants were not impleaded and tried along with Ram Prakash Oberoi under S. 20A was no bar to the prosecution of the appellants for the offence of giving false warranty and that the complaint was competent.

6. The appellants submitted before us that it was incumbent upon the Food Inspector to have filed a joint complaint against Ram Prakash Oberoi and the appellants as the Food Inspector had every opportunity to know that the appellants had given a warranty when the articles which were found to be adulterated were sold to Ram Prakash Oberoi. They submitted that under Section 14A, the vendor is bound to disclose the name of the person who gives the warranty to the Food Inspector and, as the Food Inspector had knowledge that the vendor was covered by a warranty issued by the appellants, it was his duty to have joined the appellants as accused in the complaint filed by