Whether dealer, manufacturer or distributor can be prosecuted alongwith vendor in case of prevention of food adulteration Act?

The other ground namely that the dealer, manufacturer or distributor cannot be prosecuted alongwith the vendor by impleading all of them initially as the accused in a prosecution under the Act is unsustainable in view of the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Dass Jagdish Chander v. Delhi Administration MANU/SC/0092/1975 : [1975] Supp. S.C.R. 30. In that case after considering the effect of Section 19(2), Section 20 and Section 20-A of the Act, Court observed at pages 36-37 thus:

We are also unable to accept as correct a line of reasoning found in V.N. Chokra v. The State MANU/PH/0283/1965 and Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality v. Setharam Rice and Oil Mills MANU/KE/0114/1974 : (1974) F.A.C.P 534 and P.B. Kurup v. Food Inspector, Malappuram Panchayat (1969) K L T 845 that in every case under the Act, there has to be initially a prosecution of a particular seller only, but those who may have passed on or sold the adulterated article of food the vendor, who is being prosecuted, could only be brought in subsequently after a warranty set up under Section 19(2) has been pleaded and shown to be substantiated. Support was sought for such a view by referring to the special provisions of Section 20A and Section 19(2) and Section 20 of the Act. A reason for Section 20A seems to be that the prosecution of a person impleaded as an accused under Section 20A in the course of a trial does not require a separate sanction. Section 20A itself lays down that, where the Court trying the offence is itself satisfied that a "manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with an offence", for which an accused is being tried, the necessary sanction to prosecute will be deemed to have been given. Another reason seems to be that such a power enables speedy trial of the really guilty parties. We are in agreement with the view of the Delhi High Court that these special provisions do not take away or derogate from the effect of the ordinary provisions of the law which enable separate as well as joint trials of accused persons in accordance with the provisions of the old. Sections 233 to 239 of Criminal Procedure Code. On the other hand, there seems no logically sound reason why, if a distributor or a manufacturer can be subsequently impleaded under Section 20A of the Act, he cannot be joined as a co-accused initially in a joint trial if the allegations made justify such a course.

(emphasis added)

Equivalent Citation: 1983(7)ACR337(SC), AIR1983SC545, 1983 AWC 668 SC, 1983CriLJ980, 1983KLJ301, (1983)85PLR496, 1983(1)SCALE365, (1983)2SCC384, [1983]2SCR714

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 286-292 of 1981

Decided On: 07.04.1983

Appellants: State of Punjab
Vs.
Respondent: Devinder Kumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.N. Sen and E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.

Print Page

When dealer,manufacturer or distributor can be impleaded in food adulteration case?

 In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Omprakash Shivaprakash v. Kuriakose (1999(3) KLT

861) that:

"The essential conditions for invoking the power under section 20A are that: (1) the trial should have begun already;

(2) the trial must be of any offence under the Act allegedly committed by a person other than the manufacturer or distributor or dealer of the food article;

(3) the Court must have been satisfied that such manufacturer or dealer or distributor is also concerned with the offence;

(4) such satisfaction must have been formed "on the evidence adduced before the Court"."

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court can proceed against the manufacturer, distributor or dealer only if the Court is satisfied from the "evidence adduced before it during the trial".

5. In Govinda Rao v. Food Inspector (2002(1) KLT

843) this court has held:

"A reading of section 20A would make it clear that the power given to the Court under that Section can be exercised only after taking evidence in the case. The section says that only when the Court is satisfied on the evidence adduced before it that manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with that offence, the Court may proceed against him as though prosecution had been instituted against him under section

20. Then the Court has the power to implead the manufacturer, distributor or dealer under section 20A of the Act. Court's power to implead a dealer, manufacturer or distributor under section 20A can neither be invoked before the stage of adducing evidence in the trial nor after the conclusion of trial."

Kerala High Court

M/S.RADHAKRISHNA TRADERS  vs C.V.Saseedharan on  27th day of September, 2012 

Citation: 2013CriLJ937, 2013(3)Crimes220, 2012 (4) KHC 647, 2012(4)KLJ670

Print Page