O R D E R

The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been maintained by the petitioner for setting-aside impugned order dated 03.08.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amb, District Una, whereby process was issued against the petitioner, and for quashing consequent Complaint No. 218-I-09, titled Government Food Inspector vs. Vikas Verma and others, registered under Sections 7 and 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the Act”).

2. Tersely, the facts giving rise to the present petition are

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

can be encapsulated as under:

On 23.05.2009, around 01:30 p.m., Shri Jagdish Ram, Government Food Inspector, respondent No. 1 herein (complainant), after conducting inspection of M/s Pantry Shop of Shri Vikas Verma (respondent No. 2 herein) located at Bombay Picnic Spot, Sidh Chaler, Amb, District Una, H.P., purchased three sealed packets of Uncle Chips, each 80 grams, for cash payment of Rs. 60/-. It is alleged that after completion of all the formalities, a sealed sample of aforesaid Uncle Chips was sent to Public Analyst, Kandaghat, and the remaining two packets were deposited with Local (Health) Authority. The Public Analyst, Kandaghat, upon analysis of the sample of aforesaid Uncle Chips, found the same contaminated with two dead flies (winged insects), thus the sample was found adulterated. On the premise of the report of Public Analyst, Kandaghat, a complaint, dated 20.07.2009, was filed against respondent No. 2, under Section 16 of the Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Amb, District Una, H.P., and in aftermath process was issued against respondent No. 2 (vendor). Respondent No. 2, in turn, on 16.02.2010, moved an application under Section 19(2) of the Act seeking impleadment of M/s Shri Ganesh Steels, Gagret Road, Mubarikpur (supplier), as an accused. However, the learned Trial Court, considering the section involved, did not allow the same and recorded in its order that the trial has not yet commenced, so the case was fixed for pre-charge evidence. On 06.01.2011 the learned Trial Court reviewed its earlier order dated 07.08.2010 and ultimately the application filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed. Resultantly, M/s Shri Ganesh Steels, Gagret Road, Mubarikpur (supplier) was impleaded as an accused, who, in turn, on 30.05.2011 moved an application under Section 19 of the Act for impleading Managing Director of the petitioner- company, as co-accused, being the manufacturer of the sample product. The learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 03.08.2012, allowed the application and consequently process was issued against the petitioner-company, hence the present petition. The main thrust of the petitioner-company is twin fold, viz., (a) the trial has not yet commenced, so the issuance of process against the petitioner- company is bad in the eyes of law; & (b) the material, which has come/produced before the learned Trial Court, cannot be said to be evidence.

3. Respondents No. 1 & 2, by medium of separate replies, refuted the contentions of the petitioner-company. Respondent No. 1/State, contended that as the petitioner-company did not array M/s Shri Ganesh Steels, Gagret Road, Mubarikpur (supplier) as party-respondent in the instant petition, so the instant petition is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. It is further averred that as per the mandate of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and Section 20(a) of the Act, the Court is empowered to implead manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food at any time during the trial in case it is satisfied on the evidence adduced before it, that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with that offence. Lastly, it is prayed that the instant petition be dismissed with heavy costs, as the petitioner-company has misused the process of law. On the o