K.C. Bhanu, J.

The reference has been made to the Full Bench on the observations made by a learned Single Judge of this Court by its order, dated 17.03.2010, in Crl.P.No.5796 of 2007 wherein it is observed as follows:

"In the light of the same, especially in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court and since elaborate submissions had been made by Sri V.V.N.Narayan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, the said decisions require reconsideration. Inasmuch as this question is argued in elaborate quite often, it would be proper to have an authoritative pronouncement in this regard by an appropriate Full Bench or Larger Bench, as the case may be."

2. The matter relates to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, "the Act"). Two decisions were referred to, in the reference order. First case referred to is in Mathew Xavier, Regional Sales Manager Foods, Nominee of Hindustan Lever Ltd., Mumbai and another vs. State of A.P. (2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 685 (A.P.)) wherein, it was observed as follows:

"The above decision of the Supreme Court puts the issue beyond any pale of doubt.

While a joint trial of the manufacturer, distributor, dealer and vendor is permissible, but none the less if the link is missing amongst each of them the only recourse that is available is to examine the evidence that has come on record during the trial, which if permits the manufacturer, distributor and dealer also to be prosecuted, then the power under Section 20(A) has got to be exercised. It has therefore to be understood that at the first instance, unless the Food Inspector has picked up the sample for analysis, right from the place where it is manufactured itself, he has to necessarily prosecute the manufacturer or dealer or distributor or agent only upon prima facie establishing their link to the alleged adulterated food article which has been sold or offered for sale. Therefore, at the initial stage itself, the manufacturer or distributor or dealer cannot be straight away prosecuted on the strength and basis of the information gathered in terms of Section 14A of the Act. We therefore answer the reference holding that the learned Single Judge who decided Crl. Petition No.269 of 2003 on 12.03.2006 has taken a correct view of the matter."

3. Section 20A of the Act reads as follows:

"Power of Court to implead manufacturer etc:

Where at any time during the trial of any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by any person, not being the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, the Court is satisfied, on the evidence adduced before it, that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with that offence, then, the Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), or in section 20 proceed against him as though a prosecution had been instituted against him under Section 20."

From the above provision, it is clear that the Court can exercise its discretion during the trial of the case to implead manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, if on evidence, it is satisfied that such persons are also concerned with the offence. After scrutiny of Section 20A of the Act, the following principles were laid by the Supreme Court in Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality vs. Seetharam Rice and Oil Mills (1974 FAC 534) wherein it is held as under:

"(i) Section 20A of the Act envisages a joint trial of, the vendor and the manufacturer or distributor or dealer of any article of food, as the case may be;

(ii) The powers given under Section 20A can be invoked only during the trial of any person, not being the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, for any offence under the Act;

(iii) Under this section it is imperative on the part of the court to implead a manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, whenever the court is satisfied on the evidence addu