JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana, J. — Heard. The present petition has been directed against the order dated 17-2-1993 of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehra whereby the petitioner has been summoned as an accused under section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The undisputed facts are that a sample of Haldi was lifted from the shop of respondent No. 2 which on having been sent to Food Analyst was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard. The prosecution was launched against respondent No 2. After the trial, respondent No.2 was convicted and sentenced by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehra. However, in appeal, the conviction and sentence was set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala and the case was remanded to the Magistrate for fresh trial. 3. After the remand of the case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, an application under section 20 A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was made by respondent No. 2 for summoning the petitioner as co-accused on the averments that the Haldi from which the sample was lifted by the Food Inspector was purchased by him from the present petitioner and sold to the Food Inspector in the same condition in which it was purchased by him from the petitioner. The learned Magistrate without holding an inquiry into the averments made in the application under section 20-A. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act merely on the concession of the Food Inspector directed the summoning of the present petitioner as co-accused. 4. At the very out set, it may be stated that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate summoning the petitioner as co-accused under section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is bad and cannot be sustained. It is well settled that before a person can be summoned under section 20-A, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Court has to hold an inquiry to find out whether prima facie the article of food of which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector was purchased from the manufacturer, dealer or supplier alleged by the person making the application. 5. A similar question came up for consideration before a single Bench of this Court in Ram Krishan Yoginder Paul v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, 1992 (2) FAC 133. 5. A similar question came up for consideration before a single Bench of this Court in Ram Krishan Yoginder Paul v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, 1992 (2) FAC 133. It was held “Section 20-A is in the nature of an exception to the provision of section 20. In this section, a manufacturer, distributor or dealer of an article of food can be impleaded as accused by a Court if it is satisfied on some evidence recorded in the trial that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with the offence for which some person is being tried. As such, for invoking jurisdiction under section 20-A of the Act, there should be trial of an offence under the Act pending before the Magistrate against a person other than the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of an article of food ; there should be evidence adduced before the Magistrate during such trial and the Magistrate should be satisfied on such evidence that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer is concerned with that offence ........In order to implead manufacturer, distributor or dealer, such evidence should be adduced as to connect them with the commission of such offence for which a person is being tried. If such evidence is bill or cash memo or warranty, it should be brought on record in accordance with law. Moreover, it is also necessary to prove that the adulterated article of food has been kept in the same state as it was purchased from the manufacturer, distributor or dealer till its sample was taken by the Food Inspector. This can be proved by the applicant himself giving statement on oath and by producing other evidence. In the present case, it is correct that the Food Inspector had conceded the application of respondent-accused No, 2, still in order to prove that the adulterated Besan was purchased from the petitioner and it was kept in the same state as it was purchased, the minimum requirement was that the respondent-accused No. 2 would have come forward and deposed all this on oath and produce bill No. 411 dated 16-7-1990. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that there is nothing on record on the basis of which the Chief Judicial Magistrate had satisfied himself that the petitioner was connected with manufacture/distribution of adulterated Besan for which respondent-accused No. 2 was being tried." 6. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that there is nothing on record on the basis of which the Chief Judicial Magistrate had satisfied himself that the petitioner was connected with manufacture/distribution of adulterated Besan for which respondent-accused No. 2 was being tried." 6. As stated above, in the present case, no inquiry was conducted. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. The present petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the learned Magistrate shall proceed to dispose of the application under section 20-A, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act afresh in accordance with law, and if satisfied that the petitioner is also connected with the commission of the offence as manufacturer, distributor or dealer, may implead him as co-accused along-with respondent No. 2. Petition allowed.