The jurisdiction of a Magistrate to implead a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer as an accused under Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, arises only during the trial of an offence under the Act against a person other than the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer, and the trial commences only when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, and the Magistrate proceeds to hear the prosecution and takes evidence in support of the prosecution.

1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter shortly stated the Code, the petitioner prays for quashing his prosecution under Section 16 (1) (a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, as ordered by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Ghumarwin vide his order dated 21-9-1979 whereby the Judicial Magistrate discharged Shri Bal Kishan (vendor) against whom the original complaint under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act had been filed by the Food Inspector and on an application made by the said Shri Bal Kishan, directed prosecution of the present petitioner for the offence aforesaid.

2. It appears that on 28-11-1978 the Food Inspector, Bilaspur purchased a sample of Meethi Golian from Shri Bal Kishan of village Dakari, Tehsil Ghumarwin, for the purpose of analysis under the Act. The said sample, according to the allegations made in the complaint lodged by the Food Inspector against the said Shri Bal Kishan, was taken and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and on being analysed by the Public Analyst it was found adulterated. The Food Inspector accordingly filed a complaint against the said Shri Bal Kishan under Section 16 (1) (a) read with Section 7 of the Act.

3. The Magistrate, on the complaint being presented to him, proceeded forthwith to summon Shri Bal Kishan vendor and after Shri Bal Kishan put in appearance before him the learned Magistrate adjourned the case for prosecution evidence. On the date fixed for prosecution evidence, however, no such evidence was recorded but on the other hand Shri Bal Kishan vendor moved an application purporting to be under Sections 14, 19 and 20-A of the Act before the Magistrate praying that he be discharged and in his place the present petitioner be impleaded as accused. Shri Bal Kishan vendor had alleged in his application aforesaid that he had purchased Meethi Golian out of which the sample had been taken by the Food Inspector from the manufacturer, the present petitioner, through M/s. Munshi Ram Bimal Parkash, the agents of the manufacturer, under a warrant and while in his possession such Meethi Golian had been properly stored and he had sold them in the same state as he had purchased.

4. The learned Magistrate after recording evidence of Shri Bal Kishan vendor passed the impugned order whereby he discharged Bal Kishan vendor and directed that the present petitioner and his commission agents be summoned as accused as, according to him, a case under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 had been made out against them.

5. It is obvious that the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate on the application of Bal Kishan vendor and in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 20-A of the Act. The provision reads as under: "20-A. 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."

6. Section 20 of the Act operates as a bar to the institution of any prosecution for an offence under the Act not being an offence under Section 14 or 14-A, unless such prosecution is instituted by or with the consent in writing of the Central Government or the State Government or a person duly authorised in this behalf by a general or special order of either of such Governments, Section 20-A is in the nature of an exception to the provisio