JUDGMENT : Surendra Narain Jha, J. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner for quashing a proceeding pending against him in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to all the 'Act'). 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been made an accused in T.R. Case 376 of 1980 only because of the fact that the sample which was sold by the other accused to the Food Inspector bears the name of his firm Messrs Mahadeo Products. The petitioner is a partner of the said firm. 3. The fact, which led to the filing of the present application, in short is that a complaint petition was filed in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, by the Food Inspector, Sultanganj, on 7.10.75 for taking cognizance under section 16 of the Act. The brief description of the offence is mentioned in the prosecution report which is as follows:- "(1) Exposed for sale and sold Modern Cream Toffee. (2) Manufactured for sale Modern Cream Toffee and Modern Cream Toffee is adulterated-vide P.A. Report no. 365, dt. 19.9.75." On the basis of the said complaint, the cognizance was taken against one Shri Inder Singh (seller) and proprietor, Mahadeo Products under section 16 (1) of the Act. After taking cognizance, the case was transferred to another Judicial Magistrate for disposal. From the perusal of the application, it appears that sometime in the year 1980 the petitioner, for the first time, came to know that a warrant of arrest has been issued by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, due to his non-appearance and, accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the court and was granted bail. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the proceeding against the petitioner is wholly illegal, misconceived and is fit to be quashed. He further contended that in complaint petition there is no allegation that the complainant exercised his power under section 14A of the Act for the purpose of ascertaining from the seller that he has purchased the adulterated cream toffee from the firm of the petitioner. He further contended that in complaint petition there is no allegation that the complainant exercised his power under section 14A of the Act for the purpose of ascertaining from the seller that he has purchased the adulterated cream toffee from the firm of the petitioner. The petitioner has asserted in paragraph 14 of the application that, in fact, he is not the manufacturer of the Modern Cream Toffee nor did he ever sell such toffee to the seller, another accused of the case. His submission is that the petitioner's firm has never issued any warranty to the seller which is required under section 14 of the Act. Section 14 of the Act lays down that no manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food shall sell such article to any vender unless he also gives warranty in writing in the prescribed form about the nature and quality of such article, to the vendor. He has also referred to the provisions of section 14A where it is mentioned that every vendor of an article of food shall, if so required, disclose to the "Food Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he purchased the article of food. It appears from the record of the case that the Food Inspector, Sultanganj, Patna, filed this petition of complaint before the sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, stating therein that he collected sample of the toffee from the shop of the other accused Inder Singh, and sent the same to the Public Analyst, Bihar, for chemical examination where the sample was found to be adulterated, and, as such, the accused persons mentioned in the petition of complaint should be prosecuted for offence under section 16(1) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the criminal proceeding initiated against him amounts to an abuse of the process of the court because there was no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner on the basis of which the petitioner could have been summoned for the offence alleged to have been committed by the other accused, Inder Singh. From a bare reading of the different sections' of the Act, it should appear that every seller, who purchases some articles from the manufacturer or distributor or dealer of any article, will obtain a warranty to prove that he has purchased the articles from the particular manufacturer or dealer. From a bare reading of the different sections' of the Act, it should appear that every seller, who purchases some articles from the manufacturer or distributor or dealer of any article, will obtain a warranty to prove that he has purchased the articles from the particular manufacturer or dealer. This provision has been incorporated in the Act only to protect the interest of the manufacturer or dealer since any person who will sell any adulterated article may take a defence that he has purchased it from a particular manufacturer and he may escape the liability. Therefore, the Act has made it clear that any seller, who is purchasing any article from the manufacturer, will have to obtain a warranty to show that he has purchased the article from a particular manufacturer. In the instant case, from the record it appears that no warranty has been produced by the other accused, i.e., Inder Singh, to show that he has purchased the articles in question from the petitioner's firm at Varanasi. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the provisions of section 20A of the Act where it has been laid down that where, at any time, during the trial of any offence under this Act, the court is satisfied on the evidence adduced before it that any particular manufacturer or distributor or dealer is also concerned with the offence then the court may proceed against him as though the prosecution had been instituted against him under section 20 of the Act. Till today no such evidence has come before the court that the seller had purchased this article from the petitioner's firm. The seller has not produced the certificate or warranty, which is required under the Act, in the court to show the complicity of the petitioner in the offence. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State could not be able to show me any such paper at, this stage to show that the petitioner is somehow connected with this offence. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it has to be held that under certain conditions only the petitioner can be held guilty if the seller will prove that he has purchased the adulterated article from the petitioner's firm. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it has to be held that under certain conditions only the petitioner can be held guilty if the seller will prove that he has purchased the adulterated article from the petitioner's firm. The onus is on the seller to prove that he is innocent only when he can be able to satisfy the court that he has obtained warranty from the petitioner to show that he has purchased the article from the petitioner's firm. If such evidence is not coming before the court then it will be presumed that the petitioner is not liable for any offence. If, in course of trial, any evidence will come before the court, the court has power under section 20A of the Act to proceed against him at any stage of the trial. Therefore, the court is not powerless to issue summons even at the later stage. 6. From a perusal of the records at present, I do not find any material to implicate the petitioner merely on the assertion of the other accused that he had purchased the adulterated toffee from the petitioner's firm. 7. For the reasons stated above, I allow the application of the petitioner so far as the cognizance against him is concerned. The case, which is pending before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, will proceed against the other accused and if, in the course of the trial, further evidence will come before the court, the court, may issue summons against the petitioner.