JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - This reference has been made by the lezrned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Agra and arises out of the following circumstances. 2. The Nagar Swasthya Adhikari of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, filed a complaint against Dharamvir, who is one of the applicants in this reference, and alleged in the complaint that Dharamvir held a licence, which was granted to him by the Nagar Mahapalika, for running the Agra Bottling Company and that some bottles of 'Gold Spot' were taken possession of by Sri V.N. Singh, Food Inspector from the premises of the Agra Bottling Company as samples. It was further mentioned in the complaint that the bottles were not properly labelled and thus there was a contravention of rule 32 (a) (h) of the rules framed under the Prevention on Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the rules). 'After the original complaint had been filed on 25th May 1967 on an application filed by the learned counsel for the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, before the trial Magistrate the other partners of the Agra Bottling company were also impleaded as accused in the case. This, six more persons were impleaded as accused and were summoned. The learned Magistrate, however after recording the evidence o the Food Inspectors framed charges against four persons only including Dharamvir. Against the framing of the charge by the learned Magistrate Dharamvir and three others preferred a revision out of which this reference has arisen. The learned Additional District Magistrate (J), Agra, has recommended that the charges framed against the applicants be quashed and the applicants be discharged. 3. I have heard Sri S.S. Tewari, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri B.C. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra. 4. This reference was listed before me on different dates and lengthy arguments have been advanced by both the learned counsel. At the request of Sri B.C. Saxena I summoned the bottles of `Gold Spot' and they were produced before me in Court., Those bottles bear the following statement inscribed on them :- "Contains permitted colours and part II preservative, manufactured under authority of Parles Bottling Co. Private Ltd. Bombay". 5. Sri B.C. Saxena has strenuously argued that the words' under authority of ' contained in the inscription on the bottles show that the manufactures were the Agra Bottling Co. and not Parle Bottling Co. Private Ltd. Bombay". 5. Sri B.C. Saxena has strenuously argued that the words' under authority of ' contained in the inscription on the bottles show that the manufactures were the Agra Bottling Co. and not Parle Bottling Co. Private Ltd. According to Sri Saxena the words' under authority of' are very close and according to the dictionary meaning of those words it must he held that the manufactures were the Agra Bottling Co. and not the Parles Bottling Co. 6. Before I proceed to discuss the case of Dharamvir I may mention that as far as the other three applicants, namely, Pravin Chandra, Mugat Lal and Chandu Lal are concerned there is no difficulty. Their names were not included in the original complaint which was filed by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari of the Nagar IMahapalika, Agra, on the report of the Food Inspector. (The original complaint was only against Dharamvir.1 The names of the other three accused were impleaded on an application made on behalf of the complainant. There was thus no evidence before the trial Magistrate against the three accused when they were ordered to be impleaded as accused. Thus the order of their implication was not in accordance with law and the reference as far as those three accused is concerned is accepted and the charges framed against Pravin Chandra, Mugat Lal and Chandu Lal are quashed. 7. As far as Dharmvir is concerned it is urged by Sri B.C. Saxena that since he was the representative of the Agra Bottling company and since the name and address of the manufacturer was not inscribed on the bottles there was a clear contravention of rule 32 of the rules. Rule 32 of the rules deals with the contents of the label and the relevant portion of the rule reads as follows :- "Unless otherwise provided in these rules there shall be specified on every label (a) the name, trade name or description of food contained in the package. (b) the name and business address of the manufacturer or importer or vendor or packer., 8. According to Sri B.C. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari the name and address of the person manufacturing was not inscribed on the inscription contained on the bottles and hence there was a clear violation of rule 32 and the learned Magistrate was, therefore, justified in framing a charge against Dharamvir. 9. According to Sri B.C. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari the name and address of the person manufacturing was not inscribed on the inscription contained on the bottles and hence there was a clear violation of rule 32 and the learned Magistrate was, therefore, justified in framing a charge against Dharamvir. 9. After the reference had been heard by me on several dates an application was was filed by Sri S. S. Tewari learned counsel appearing for the applicant on 1st August 1969 praying that a certificate dated 15th May 1965 given by Parles Bottling Co. Private Limited at Bombay be admitted in evidence. The reason contained in the application filed by Sri Tewari for admitting the certificate is mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application which states that the applicant wanted to file the certificate in the court of the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Agra, and that an application on that effect was prepared and was fully stamped and the certificate was also entered on the list of documents but by inadvertence the document was left out and remained in the file of the learned counsel conducting the case before the learned Magistrate. It is further mentioned in paragraph 5 of the application that the learned counsel conducting the case in the High Court while going through the file found the document and that in the interest of justice it is essential that the document be admitted in evidence. An objection has been filed by Sri B. C. Saxena, against the production of the certificate as additional evidence in the case. The objection of Sri Saxena is that the case which has given rise to the reference has not yet been disposed of and is still pending in the court of the learned Magistrate. According to the learned counsel it is open to the applicant to file the evidence which is sought to be filed in this court and they can do so when the case goes back to the Magistrate for disposal. According to the learned counsel it is open to the applicant to file the evidence which is sought to be filed in this court and they can do so when the case goes back to the Magistrate for disposal. Learned counsel further objects that the proceedings were pending in the court of the learned Magistrate for a long time but the proposed additional evidence was not filed in the Magistrate's court nor was it filed in the court of Additional District Magistrate (J) and, therefore, the applicant was not entitled to the exercise of the discretion in their favour as provided under section 428, Criminal Procedure Code. 10. I have given very careful thought to the objections filed by Sri B. C. Saxena and in my opinion there is no force in those objections. Under section 428 read with section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, this Court has the power to admit additional evidence. In the instant case the certificate which has been filed by Sri S.S. Tewari clinches the matter and in the interest of justice and in the exercise of powers conferred on this court by section 439 read with section 428, Criminal Procedure Code, I am of opinion that the certificate be admitted in evidence. This certificate has been proved by Sri Cheda Lal Sharma, who was examined in this court on 4th August 1969. Sri Cheda Lal Sharma is the Sales Supervisor and Officer Incharge of Agra Bottling Co. Thee stated that Parle Bottling company was the manufacturer of the Gold Spot and the Agra Bottling Company were the bottlers of the bottles. He was shown the certificate dated 15th May 1965 granted by Parle Bottling Company Private Ltd. and stated that the certificate has been produced from the possession of Agra Bottling Co. The witness further stated that the document had been signed on behalf of Parla Bottling Company by Franchise Manager Sri B. D. Topiwala whose signatures he recognises. He also stated that he had seen Sri Topiwala writing and recognising his signatures. He was cross-examined by Sri B.C Saxena, In cross-examination he stated that the Agra Bottling Company is a firm consisting of four partners and that the compound which is used in preparing the Gold Spot bottles is supplied by the Parle Bottling Company to Agra Bottling Company. He further stated in cross examination that Agra Bottling Company does only bottling work. He further stated in cross examination that Agra Bottling Company does only bottling work. The certificate dated 15th May 1965 reads as follows :- "This is to certify that M/S Parle Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. Bombay has appointed MIS Agra Bottling Co. Agra as their bottlers and has given them authority to pack and sell their products viz. Gold Spot, Parle's Soda etc. in their registered design bottles bearing the name & trade name of MIS Parle Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. Bombay. M /S Parle Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. only are the manufacturers and owners of the aforesaid drinks. M/S Agra Bottling Co. are not authorised to use any other bottles and crowns etc. except those supplied by MIS Parle Bottling Co. (P) Ltd." 11. As stated earlier the certificate is signed by the Franchise Manager for Parle Bottling Co. (P) Ltd From the certificate and the evidence of Cheda Lal Sharma it is, therefore, clear that Agra Bottling Co. are not the manufacturers of the soft drinks contained in the bottles marked Gold Spot, in my opinion, sufficiently, complies with the provisions of clause(a) of rule 32 which requires the name, trade name or description of food to be specified on the lable and also satisfied the provision contained in clause (b) of that rule. From the certificate, which has now been admitted into evidence, and from the statement of Sri Chedalal Sharma it is clear that Agra Bottling Co. were the manufacturers of Gold Spot and Agra Bottling Co. were only the packers. Parle Bottling Co. being the manufacturer did not appear to have filed any complaint against Agra Bottling Co. for breach of the authority given to them for bottling Parle's Gold Spot. In my opinion the manufacturer's name and address has been given on the Table inscribed on the bottles and thus there is no contravention of either clauses (a) or clause (b) of rule 32 of the rules. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at great length and after going through the record and for the reasons mentioned above I accept this reference and quash the charge framed against applicant Dharmvir also.