Note : Bench Reader will attach this at the top of first v. State of Uttaranchal through Chief Secretary

Learned C.J.M. after examining the complaint took the cognizance by 7/16 Porhibition of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He has also arrayed the accused person-petition as a manufacturer of the said chillies powder. It is contended is no averment complaint that any warranty or invoice was given to the accused No. 1. It was also contended that it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to aver in the complaint that there was a warranty or invoice issued by the manufacturer. In absence of such averment, the cognizance order cannot be passed against the manufacturer and the cognizance can only taken under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned counsel in support of his arguments has referred the decision in M/s Chet Ram Parumal Oil Mill Vs. State of U.P. and another 1999(38) ACC p/938, in which it has been held:- “5. I have heard Mr. B.D. Mandhyan learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A Inspite of notices being served to the opposite party, no counter affidavit has been filed.

The revision is pending since 7.12.1984 and about 14-1/2 years have elapsed. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the name of the applicant was not disclosed by the vendor as required by section 14 of the Act. No copy of the notice was sent by the Food Inspector in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the applicant also referred to Section 14 of the Act, which requires the manufacturer not to sell any article of food to any vendor unless he also gives a warranty in writing in the prescribed form about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor. Section 14 of the Act, further provides that the bill, case memorandum or invoice given by the manufacturer. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant contended that the applicant had neither given any warranty nor any bill, cash memorandum or invoice to the vendor not the Vendor had Purchased the oil-tins from it, therefore, the applicant could not be tried.

It was next contended that by the learned counsel that in the absence of any evidence available on the record or collected by the Food Inspector, the applicant could not be summoned. The learned counsel also referred to Section 20-A of the Act which empowers the Magistrate to summon the manufacturer at any stage of the trial if any evidence is adduced before him that the manufacturer is also concerned with the offence.” The learned counsel in support of his arguments has also referred the decision in Om Prakash Shivprakash Vs. K.I. Kuriakose SCC 1999 (8) p/633 that the court has the power to implead the manufacturer, distributor or dealer under section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and this power cannot be invoked before the stage of adducing the evidence in the trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further clarified that the trial for the offences under the Act beings when the Magistrate asks the accused whether he pleads guilty or not as envisaged in section 251 of the Code.