(V.K. Gupta, C.J.) (Oral) - A very unique and peculiar method, but totally unknown to law, was adopted by the learned trial Magistrate which led to the summoning by him of the petitioner as an accused in a case pending before his Court under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

2.Respondent had filed the aforesaid complaint in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli alleging therein that 40x5 kg. bags of Fortified Whole Wheat Atta was adulterated. According to the averments contained in the complaint, the complainant inspected the premises of M/s. Parkash Agencies, Parwanoo on 23rd August, 2003 and purchased a specified quantity of the aforesaid wheat Atta and made samples thereof. M/s. Parkash Agencies being a retail seller of the wheat atta accordingly was impleaded as accused No. 1 in the complaint through its Manager, namely, Shri Pawan Kumar. In para (2) of the complaint, there is a specific averment that accused No. 1 disclosed to the complainant under Section 14A of the Act that it had purchased the Atta in question from Cargil India Pvt. Ltd. He averment to this effect, as forming part of para 2 of the complaint, reads thus :-

“2...................At the time of taking sample accused No. 1 disclosed under Section 14-A that he had purchased the atta in question from Cargil India Pvt. Ltd. CFA New Vision Agencies,village Fabnot Chandigarh-Sirakpur Road, Distt. Ropar (Punjab) vide invoice was sent to accused No. 2 under registered cover.”

3.In para (6) of the complaint, the complainant went on to say that since Cargil India Pvt. Ltd. had not nominated any person under Section 17(2) of the Act so all its Directors are responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company etc. etc. For ready reference, para (6) of the complaint is reproduced hereinbelow, which reads thus :

“6. The Cargil India Pvt. Ltd. has not nominated any person under Section 17(2) of the PFA Act with the LHA, Solan so all its Directors are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and has sold adulterated Atta to accused No. 1 vide invoice No. 15047 dated 21.7.2003 and company through its Managing Director along with all Directors are liable to be punished under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(1) of PFA Act.”

4.It was based upon the aforesaid averments that the complaint was presented before the learned trial Magistrate impleading Pawan Kumar as accused No. 1 and Cargil India Pvt. Ltd. as accused No. 2. It shall be advantageous to take note of the description of the accused persons as it is occurring in the cause title of the complaint. The description is as under :-

“1. Shri Pawan Kumar son of Shri Prem Chand Gupta, Manager for M/s. Parkash Agencies HCF No. 1 Sector-1 Parwanoo, Tehsil Kasauli, Distt. Solan, H.P.

2. Cargil India Pvt. Ltd. CFA-New Vision Agencies, Village Pabhot, Chandigarh Sirakpur Road, Distt. Ropar (Punjab) through its Managing Director along with its all Directors.”

5.What, therefore, is clearly noticeable is that no individual by name was impleaded in the complaint in the array of accused persons as far as Cargil India Pvt. Ltd. is concerned. It only mentioned “Managing Director along with all its Directors” as representing Cargil India Pvt. Ltd.

6.The original record of the trial Court reveals to me that it was on 2nd January, 2004 that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and ordered the issuance of summons for the presence of the accused for facing trial before him. Interlocutory order dated 13th August, 2004 suggests that accused No. 1 had put in appearance. Accused No. 2, however, not having appeared, summons were ordered to be issued for its appearance. Thereafter various orders were passed by the learned trial Magistrate for the service of accused No. 2. On 14th September, 2006, the learned trial Magistrate directed that fresh notice be issued to accused No. 2 on filing process