JUDGMENT R. S. Thakur, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, (1), Mandi, dated June 13, 1986, whereby the revisionist J. L. Jindal, was arrayed as an accused in accordance with section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The facts of the case are that Ishwar Dass Verma, Food Inspector Mandi District, on May 7, 1980, purchased three sealed packet of turmeric haldi weighing 100 grams each from the shop of Rajinder Mohan at Baggi which were exposed for public sale, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder for purpose of analysis when each of the packets was duly wrapped and sealed etc Be it stated that at the time of this purchase, the accused Rajinder Mohan disclosed that he had purchased those Agmarked packet, from the manufacturer thereof, namely, M/s. Sona Spices Suppliers, 50 Industrial Estate, Chandigarh, vide cash-memo dated March 4, 1980. Out of these sealed packets, one packet was sent to the Public Analyst whereas the other two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority. The report of the Public Analyst dated June 3, 1980 (Ex. PF) revealed that: "The ash insoluble in dilute HCI is 1.54% against maximum prescribed standard of 1.50%. The sample also contains 0.45% of grit." 3. Thus the sample having been found as adulterated, a complaint was filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Mandi, on March 18, 1981, against the aforesaid Rajinder Mohan, shopkeeper and M/s. Sona Spices Suppliers, 50 Industrial Estate, Chandigarh. Notices in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act were also issued to both the accused. During the course of the proceedings, it was revealed by Rajinder Mohan accused that the said firm, namely, M/s. Sona Spices Suppliers had since been converted into M/s. Sona Spices Private Ltd., firm and as such the notice should be issued to the Managing Director of the said firm which was accordingly done by the Court. The said company then filed a document in the Court to the effect that one Shri G. L. Jindal, Director of the company had been nominated by the company as its nominee for the purpose of the Act and accordingly said G. L. Jindal put in appearance in the Court. The said company then filed a document in the Court to the effect that one Shri G. L. Jindal, Director of the company had been nominated by the company as its nominee for the purpose of the Act and accordingly said G. L. Jindal put in appearance in the Court. Both these accused, namely, Rajinder Mohan and G. L. Jindal were charge-sheeted for the offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with sections 7 and 17 pf the Act and they both pleaded not guilty to the accusations. When the accused G. L. Jindal, however, was being examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of section 313 of the Cr. P. C. at the conclusion of prosecution evidence, he came out with the plea that he was nominee of M/s. Sona Spices Private Ltd. which company had nothing to do with M/s. Sona Spices Suppliers. Then he led defence evidence to show that the revisionist J. L. Jindal was the proprietor of M/s. Sona Spices Suppliers which on October 5, 1985 was converted into Sona Home Products. On this, the learned Magistrate vide the impugned judgment stayed its hands from pronouncing the judgment and vide the impugned order dated June 13, 1986, arrayed the revisionist J. L. Jindal, as co-accused with Rajinder Mohan in place of Girdhari Lal Jindal and ordered the issuance of processes against him and after a number of hearing for the presence of the revisionist in vain, said J. L. Jindal instead of attending that Court filed the instant revision. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case carefully. The only point that was urged before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist was that the Food Inspector has in this case violated the provisions of Rule 14 framed under the Act, namely, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The learned Deputy Advocate General, however, on the other hand has controverted this plea and supported the procedure adopted by the Food Inspector The provisions of Rule 14 read as follows :— "Samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry-bottles or jars or in other suitable containers, which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed." 5. The precise contention raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist was that admittedly the Food Inspector while taking the sample in the case in question, had taken three packets of haldi’ powder and had wrapped and sealed them without putting the same either in dry bottles or jars or any other suitable containers and this being a mandatory provision has vitiated the entire trial. 1 find no substance in this contention Admittedly, the haldi powder was in the same sealed condition and duly Agmarked as it was supplied to the vendor Rajinder Mohan by M/s Sona Spices Suppliers and in these circumstances there was no question of putting those packets in clean, dry bottles and jars or suitable containers as those sealed packets prepared by the manufacturer themselves were suitable containers as envisaged by the Rules and in fact it was the mandatory requirement of law that it should have been taken in the same sealed packet containers without opening them and should have been sent in the same sealed containers to the public analyst. Reference in this behalf may be made to the provisions of Rule 22-A which says: "Where food is sold or stocked for sale or for distribution in sealed containers having identical label declaration, the contents of one or more of such containers as may be required to satisfy the quantity prescribed in Rule 22 shall be treated to be a part of the sample.” 6. Thus it is apparent that where the Food is sold in a sealed container like the one in question, the sealed container as such must be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis of the contents of the container and it is only when they are sent in that condition that the container shall be treated to be part of the sample. If the contents are taken out from the sealed container, there would be a clear violation of the mode prescribed for taking the sample for analysis. The contention, therefore, is devoid of any force. 7. It may also be stated that one of the samples with the Local Health Authority was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, at the instance of the accused Rajinder Mohan and as per the report, Ex. PL, it was again found to be adulterated. 8. The contention, therefore, is devoid of any force. 7. It may also be stated that one of the samples with the Local Health Authority was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, at the instance of the accused Rajinder Mohan and as per the report, Ex. PL, it was again found to be adulterated. 8. In view of this, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. 9. Before parting with this revision petition, however, it would not be improper to take note of the fact how the manufacturing company/firm of this ‘haldi powder, namely M/s. Sona Spices Suppliers has been hoodwinking the courts of law if not defrauding them. Apparently this haldi powder in question was supplied to Rajinder Mohan by M/s. Sona Spices Suppliers, 50—Industrial Estate, Chandigarh. Then in response to the processes of the trial Court, Sh. G. L. Jindal appeared as a nominee of this firm/ Co continued being tried as a co-accused on behalf of the firm/Co, as its nominee till the end of the proceedings and during the course of the trial, as is apparent from the record, he has been playing the usual delaying tactics in not attending the court on various hearings on one pretext or the other. As already stated, the complaint was filed on March 18, 1981. This Girdhari Lal Jindal put in a document showing himself as the nominee of the firm some time in 1981 and thereafter he even suffered the framing of the charge against him as nominee of accused firm/Co, and ultimately disclosed that he was not the nominee of the firm/ Co. which had actually supplied this haldi powder in question to said Rajinder Mohan on December 29, 1984, when he was being examined under section 313 of the Cr. P. C. It can be safely presumed that the revisionist J. L. Jindal and this Girdhari Lal Jindal belong to the same family and the latter intentionally kept quiet during the entire trial and even delayed the trial by absenting himself on flimsy excuses although he knew that the camouflage that these Jindals have created by resorting to strategem and subterfuge of creating, dissolving and recreating different firms/Companies of almost the same nomenclature with slight differences was likely to put the court on the wrong track and he obviously succeeded in his evil design. It is also clear that after it came to the knowledge of the court that M/s. Sona Home Products was the successor of M/s. Sona Spices Suppliers which nomenclature was changed in May 1983 issued processes against it, the revisionist and his henchman evaded the service of the processes of the trial court for quite some time and when he found that the hands of that court were closing upon him, he rushed to this court and by getting the revision petition admitted, succeeded \n getting the trial hanged again in mid-air by obtaining a stay order from this Court and for the last two years the proceedings of the case have again remained in suspended animation and thus obviously even after a period of eight long years the revisionist has not seen the inside of the trial court at Mandi. To say the least, it is a gross abuse of the process of court. 10. Be it stated that whatever objection the revisionist has taken in this court in the revision he could well take up the same even in the trial court and in case the findings were adverse to him other for a were there which he could approach challenging those findings. 11. This court, therefore, while rejecting the revision petition orders as follows : 1. The case is remanded to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mandi for retrial in accordance with law. 2. Since, as already observed, this case has been hanging fire for such an inordinately long time, it is directed that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate will try the case now on top priority basis by fixing it for day-to-day hearing. 3. The revisionist J. L. Jindal shall attend each and every hearing in this case in person and for that purpose the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall obtain adequate and satisfactorily security from him by way of personal bond and surety bond(s) and in case he absents himself from any of the hearing for insufficient grounds, to be inquired into and determined by the Court care fully in case of such lapse, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall send the revisionist to the judicial custody and keep him there till the trial of the case is concluded. 12. 12. The parties are directed to attend the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Mandi on January 30, 1989, which date has been given after consulting the learned counsel for the revisionist. Revision dismissed. -