Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act allows for the impleading of the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer during the trial of an offence under the Act if the offence was committed during the course of the same transaction. The term "trial" in section 20A includes both pre- and post-charge stages.

( 1 ) ON January 23, 1973, at 9. 45 p;m. a food inspector visited the premises of Alka Hotel and Restaurant in Connaught Circus. New Delhi. He purchased toned milk and curd prepared from toned milk from M. C. Arora, manager of the restaurant. Each sample was divided into three pans as required by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (the Act), One sample of each of the two articles was sent to the public analyst. The analyst reported that both the samples were adulterated.

( 2 ) THE Union of India launched the prosecution against three accused persons (1) M. C. Arora, manager of the restaurant; (2) Alka Hotel and Restaurant, a partnership firm and (3) S. P. Agarwal, the managing partner of the firm Alka Hotel and Restaurant who, it was stated, was incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. The complaint was filed under sections 7, 16 and 17 of the Act.

( 3 ) WHEN the evidence was being recorded by the trying magistrate the accused M. C. Arora made an application to the court for sending the samples of both the articles to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for test analysis. The trial court acceded to the request. The Director certified that the toned milk confirmed to the specified standard. The sample of curd was found to be adulterated and was so certified by the Director.

( 4 ) THE prosecution, in the course of the evidence, examined on October 15, 1974, a clerk from the office of Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishment. In his evidence it was revealed that S. P. Aggarwal is the managing director of Aggarwal Hotels Private Ltd. and that Alka Hotel and Restaurant is owned by Aggarwal Hotels (P) Ltd. Consequently on April 9, 1975, the prosecution moved an application under S. 20-A of the Act. In this application, which is the bone of contention before us, the complainant averred "that in Alka Hotel and Restaurant owned by M/s. Aggarwal Hotels (P) Ltd. the curd (toned milk) in question, could be sold either in that form or with Raita, Dahi Bhalla etc. and thus the Aggarwal Hotels (P) Ltd. was manufacturer and the dealer for the purpose of S. 20-A" of the Act and further that Aggarwal Hotels (P) Ltd. as the manufacturer and dealer was concerned with the offence of sale of adulterated milk and curd by the manager of the Alka Restaurant on January 23, 1973 to the food inspector. The complainant prayed that Aggarwal Hotels (P) Ltd. be impleaded as an accused under S. 20-A and be tried along with the other accused.

( 5 ) THE trying magistrate allowed the application by his order dated 28th August, 1975. It was not disputed before the court below nor before us that Alka Hotel and Restaurant is an establishment of Aggarwal Hotels (P) Ltd. The magistrate, therefore, took the view that Aggarwal Hotels (P) Ltd. is at least a "dealer" is curd which was used by its Restaurant. He, therefore, ordered that Aggarwal Hotels Pvt. Ltd. be impleaded as an accused in the case and summons be issued to the said company.

( 6 ) ON September 22, 1975, the accused M. C. Arora moved an application for review of the order dated August 28, 1975 and discharge of the accused persons. It was said that the order impleading the company was illegal and without jurisdiction. The trying magistrate on October 27, 1975, dismissed the application for review with the observation that the question of discharge would properly be decided after hearing arguments on the question offraming the charge, and not at that stage.

( 7 ) THE three original accused persons have challenged, the orders dated August 28, 1975 and October 27, 1975 by this petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, and have prayed that these be quashed.

( 8 ) AT the very outset it appeared to us that none of the three original accused persons were competent to question the correctness of the order of the magistrate directing the impleadment of Aggarwal Hotels (P) Ltd. If at a