Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : RAMANUJULU NAIDU
S.SIVA MURTHY, SOMESWARA OIL DEPOT XVIIITH WARD, YEMMIGANUR - Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. - Respondent
Crl.R.C.Nos. 414 & 417 /84
Decided On : 01-28-87
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. V. Jagannadha Rao,Mr. Kannabhiram
Held : The definition of "Sale" contained in Section 2 (xiii) of the Act is wide enough to include within its ambit every kind of seller including a manufacturer, a distributor and a dealer. Every seller can be prosecuted for an offence created by Sec. 7 of the Act which prohibits sale as well as manufacture and distribution of an adulterated article of food. The mere fact that for the purposes of Section 14, the person who would be the last seller, in the sense that he sells to the actual consumer, is described as "the vendor", does not effect the liability for an offence under Section 7 of the Act· A sale of an article of food by a manufacturer or a distributor or a dealer is a distinct and separate offence. Section14 does not ca I ve out an exemption in favour of a distributor or a manufacturer or a dealer who sells articles of food found to be adulterated, irrespective of the question whether any warranty was given in respect of the same. Neither Section 7 nor Section 14 of the Act bars trial of several offences by the same accused person, be he a manufacturer, a distributor or a last seller, referred to as "the vendor" in Sec. 14 of the Act.
Section 19 (3) of the Act only gives an opportunity to the person who gave the warranty to appear and give evidence and by volunteering to appear and give evidence he does not became an accused. The opportunity to appear to give evidence is to enable him to show that the vendor had not properly stored the article while in his possession or that he did not sell the article in the same state as he had purchased it in order to avoid prosecution against him on the basis of a false warranty.
In order that the manufacturer or distributor or dealer may be impleaded under Section 20-A of the Act, it is necessary, that there should be a trial for an offence commi1ted under the Act by a person and that the manufacturer or distributor or dealer must be concerned in the offence. When once the manufacturer or distributor is impleaded, the trial proceeds as if he is also an accused in the case and no fresh sanction for prosecution of all or any of them as required under Section 20 of the Act would be necessary.
Section 20-A of the Act is an enabling provision. It can only be invoked after trial of the vendor had commenced and before it is concluded. It is left to the discretion of the Magistrate, whether in a particular case, having regard to the evidence adduced, it is necessary, in the interests of justice, to implead the manufacturer, distributor or dealer as the case may be. Even in a case where the Magistrate could properly have impleaded the manufacturer or distributor or dealer in a proceeding against a person alleged to have committed an offence under the Act but failed to do so, that would not, in any way confer an immunity from a separate trial against them for which they could have been tried under Section 20-A of the Act.
Section 19 (2) of the Act entitles the last seller of an adulterated article of food to claim immunity under the Act on the basis of a warranty furnished to him by a manufacturer or distributor or dealer in respect of that article of food. He can invoke the immunity enacted under Sec 19 (2) of the Act, in defence, in prosecution for an offence pertaining to sale of any adulterated article of food only during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or under Sec. 315 (1) Cr.P.C. The very scheme of the Act permits either of the statements of the accused person under Sec.313 or Sec.315 (1) Cr.P.C., as otherwise the power conferred under the Court under Section 20-A of the Act become otiose.
In a trial for an offence committed under the Act by a person it is desirable if not imperative or obligatory that the Magistrate should implead all the persons including the manufacturer, distributor and the dealer under Section 20-A of the Act whenever the conditions laid down there under a re satisfied, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflict of findings. Where the activities of the manufacturer, the distributor and the last seller of an article of adulterated food are sufficiently connected by a unity of purpose and design it is both permissible and desirable to have a joint trial unless such joint trial is likely to Jeopardise a fair trial. Ordinarily they ought to be separately tried but a joint trial of such accused persons is not ab initio illegal and it can take place in suitable cases.
Crl. R.Cs. Dismissed
( 1 ) IN these two Criminal Revision Cases, the scope of Seetion 20-A of the PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 No. 37 of 1954, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", falls for consideration.
( 2 ) CRIMINAL Revision Case No. 414 of 1984 arises out of the order made by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yemmiganur , directing Sivaraj rathi and Co. , of Adoni to be impleaded as the 3rd accused in C. C. No. 104 of 1983 on his file under Section 20-A of the Act. On a complaint instituted by the Food Inspector, Yemmiganur Municipality against the petitioners, s. Sivamurthy, Someswara Oil Depot, XVIII Ward, Yemmiganur and c. Nagabhushanam, Sales-man of the said Depot, under Sections 16 (1) and 7 read with Section 2 (ia) and (1) of the Act alleging that adulterated ground- nut oil was sold to him on 16-10-1981, the same was taken on file by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yemmiganur. During their examination under Sec. 313 Cr. PC the petitioners pleaded that what was sold to the Food Inspector, Yemmiganur Municipality was taken out from a sealed container supplied to their Depot, by Sivaraj Rathi and Co. , of Adoni. In Support of their plea, Exs. D-1 to D-3, a credit bill dated 6-10-1981 for rs,. 12,577-95 p. issued by Sivaraj Rathi and Co. , to the 1st petitioner towards price of five barrels of groundnut oil, a counterfoil of Che cheque dated 14-10-1981 for Rs. 7,000/- issued by the 1st petitioner and a voucher dated 11-11-1981 for Rs. 5,899-74 issued to the 1st petitioner by Sivaraj Rathi and co. . , were filed by the petitioners. Exs. D-l to D-3 having been marked on belialf of the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, in-charge of the prosecution realising that the defence available Under Section 19 (2) of the acii was put forward by the petitioners, orally requested the learned Magisterate to implead Sivaraj Rathi and Co. , of Adoni as the 3rd accused in the case in the interests of justice under Section 20-A of the Act. According to the request, the learned Magistrate directed Sivaraj Rathi and Co. , of Adoni to be impleaded as the 3rd accused in the case by his order dated 28-7-1984.
( 3 ) CRIMINAL Revision Case No. 417 of 1984 arises out of the order dated 17-7-1984 passed by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, rajahmundry dismissing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 524 of 1984 filed by the petitioners for an order discharging them from C. C. No. 158 of 1982, in which they were impleaded as A-2 and A-3. The case was intially instituted only against one Grandhi Veera Venkata Rao by the Food Inspector, rajahmundry Municipality under Sections 16 (1) and 7 (1) of the Act read with Section 2 (ia) and (j) of the Act for sale of adulterated redgram dal to h tin on 22-3-1982. During his examination under Section 313 Cr. p. C. Grandhi Veera Venkata Rao pleaded that he had purchased one quintal of fedgram dall fr6m the firm of "puruchuri China Venkateswarlu and Sons, rajahmundry of which the petitioners are the partners under a cash bill dated 22-3-1981, a xerox copy of which was marked as Ex. D-1, that he stored the said stock of redgram in tact for sale in his shop, that he did not adulterate the stock and that what was sold to the Food Inspector was from out of the said stock. Grandhi Veera Venkata Rao having invoked, in defence, the plea available under Section 19 (2) of the Act, Criminal Miscellaneous petition No. 1337 of 1983 was filed on behalf of the Food Inspector, rajahmundry Municipality under Secition 20-A of the Act for impleading the petitioners as A-2 and A-3 in the case and for proceeding against them as though the complaint had been instituted against them under Section 20 of the Act. The said petition was allowed by the learned. Magistrate and summonses were issued to the petitioners. The petitioners having appeared before the Court in response to the summonses were supplied with copies of the relevant material and the Food Inspector was permitted to a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
