Judgment This is a revision petition by the 3rd accused, A.J. & Co., which has been directed by the trial Court to be impleaded as a party under Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. The facts leading to this petition are as follows: The Food Inspector, Thanjavur preferred a complaint against accused 1 and 2 stating that he purchased coconut oil from the 2nd accused at 10.00 A.M., on 13.10.1978 at Thanjavur Town, and on analysis, it was found to be adulterated. The 2nd accused was the seller and the 1st accused was said to be the manufacturer of the coconut oil. The Food Inspector was examined as P.W.1 and documents were marked. When questioned, the 1st accused gave a statement that he is not the manufacturer of the coconut oil and that a third party, namely, A.J. &Co., of Adiramapattinam which is having its Head Office at Madras in the manufacturer and that the 1st accused was only a manager who has to despatch the sealed tins for orders. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate applied Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and directed the manufacturer, namely, A.J. & Co., of Adiramapattinam to be impleaded as a co-accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The 3rd accused entered appearance before the Magistrate and has now come forward with this revision contending that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to implead the present petitioner as a co-accused and that, in any event, there is no material before the Magistrate to hold that he is also concerned with the offence. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that the order of the trial Court directing the impleadment of the petitioner herein does not call for any interference. My reasons are as follows: In this case, the learned Magistrate has acted under the powers conferred on him by Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Evidence has been recorded and it disclosed that the petitioner is the manufacturer who had supplied coconut oil tins to the 1st accused under the Invoice Ex.F.14 which bears the name of A.J. & Co., (Branch at Madras). Ex.P.14 clearly recites that on 23.9.1978, the manufacturer A.J. & Co., had sold a big tin of coconut oil to the 2nd accused. Ex.P.14 clearly recites that on 23.9.1978, the manufacturer A.J. & Co., had sold a big tin of coconut oil to the 2nd accused. Therefore, A.J. & Co., namely the petitioner herein is a necessary party to this proceeding under Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 4. Secondly, the statement of the 1st accused before the trial Court is that he is the person in charge of the concern at Adiramapattinam and he has admitted that the petitioner/firm are the manufacturers which is also evident from the invoice Ex.P.14. On this evidence the learned Magistrate was satisfied that the petitioner, being the manufacturer of the coconut oil in question, is also concerned in this offence, and therefore, directed the said company to be impleaded as an accused. The satisfaction of the Magistrate is a subjective satisfaction and it is not possible to lay down any guidelines indicating the basis, quantum and quality of evidence necessary to reach the satisfaction referred to in Section 20-A of the Act. The Full Bench decision reported in Food Inspector v. Seetharam Rice & Oil Mills, (1974) M.L.J. (Crl.) 658, is very clear on this point. To invoke the powers under Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, three things are necessary, namely (1) there must have been a trial of an offence under the Act pending against a person other than the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food; (2) there must have been evidence adduced before Court during the trial that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is concerned with the offence with which the person proceeded against in the trial is charged; and (3) the Court must also be satisfied on the evidence adduced before it that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is concerned with the offence. When those things are satisfied, the Court has no option but to proceed against such manufacturer. A special procedure is prescribed under this section for adding or impleading certain persons mentioned therein in the course of a trial of an offence under the Act. Therefore, inasmuch as the learned Magistrate has on the evidence before him been satisfied that the petitioner should be impleaded as an accused, there is nothing wrong with that order which would justify this Court in revision to interfere. Therefore, inasmuch as the learned Magistrate has on the evidence before him been satisfied that the petitioner should be impleaded as an accused, there is nothing wrong with that order which would justify this Court in revision to interfere. It is not for this Court to go into the question of the quality or quantum of evidence at this stage, and the order of the learned Magistrate directing impleadment of the petitioner herein as a co-accused is quite correct. Further, the petitioner having appeared before the trial Court in response to the summons has to face the trial and he cannot avoid doing so especially in the face of the evidence before the Lower Court. Of course, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the quantum, adequacy of otherwise of the evidence adduced before the lower Court during trial Court. 5. The result is, the impleading of the petitioner as an accused under Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is justified and does not call for any interference. The petition is dismissed, and this being a Calendar Case of the year 1978, the trial Court will take it out of order and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible. The interim stay is vacated.