NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J:- The question that has been referred to the Bench is: "can any other person, other than the vendor of a food article be imp-leaded as a co-accused at the very initial stage of the proceedings for prosecution or not?" 2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in CC No.227 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Adilabad, who solicited the said proceedings to be quashed by instituting the present criminal petition. The facts which are relevant for answering the reference are, that a private complaint had been lodged by the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Food Inspector, Division-I, Adilabad before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad for offences punishable under Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) read with 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, henceforth referred to for brevity as 'Act'. The said complaint discloses that on 20.4.2001, the Food Inspector visited the shop of the 1st accused (A1) and after disclosing his identity to the said accused, he suspected a 'Mixed Fruit Jam (Kissan)', which was kept thereat for sale for human consumption, to have been adulterated. With a view to analyse the sample thereof, he purchased a sealed bottle of 500 gms weight and paid for it's value and obtained a cash receipt there for. After making known his intention to subject the article of food purchased by him for analysis, the Food Inspector has prepared notice in Form VI and served the same on the A1. It has been specifically asserted that when asked, A1 has informed that he would furnish the purchase bill relevant to the food article lifted for sample, later on. However, since the sealed bottle contained the necessary particulars on its label disclosing the details, of its manufacturer, the Inspector has put the said manufacturer, A3 on notice. On 21.4.2001, the Food Inspector has sent one of the three parts of the sample for analysis to the Public Analyst. The remaining two samples were sent to the Assistant Food Controller and Local (Health) Authority, Zone-V, Warangal, under a registered parcel. In accordance with Rule 12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, he put the manufacturer on notice. The Public Analyst furnished his report in Form III dated 22.5.2001. The remaining two samples were sent to the Assistant Food Controller and Local (Health) Authority, Zone-V, Warangal, under a registered parcel. In accordance with Rule 12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, he put the manufacturer on notice. The Public Analyst furnished his report in Form III dated 22.5.2001. On 1.6.2001, the Food Inspector sent necessary communications to A3 to furnish the particulars of licence under which the food item has been manufactured. On 18.6.2001, he received from the manufacturer the particulars of the nominee and hence the said nominee has been arrayed as A2. After obtaining the necessary written consent, the Food Inspector instituted the prosecution against Al to A3. Pursuant to the said summons, the accused appeared before the Court and A2 and A3 have moved the present application for quashing the said proceedings. 3. In support of the petition, it has been mainly contended that without complying with the requirements of Section 14, prosecution has been launched against the manufacturer and his nominee, inasmuch as A1 has not produced the purchase bill of the food item which has been subjected to analysis. In somewhat similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge had quashed the prosecution launched against the manufacturer and his nominee by a judgment rendered on 10.3.2006 in Criminal Petition No.269 of 2003, as there is no material or even an allegation in the complaint that the adulterated food had been supplied by the petitioners therein who were also incidentally the petitioners in this petition. 4. Before we examine the question raised, it would be relevant to notice some of the important provisions contained in the Act, which has been ushered in for prevention of adulteration of food. The expression 'adulterated' has been defined in very broad terms in Section 2(ia). 4. Before we examine the question raised, it would be relevant to notice some of the important provisions contained in the Act, which has been ushered in for prevention of adulteration of food. The expression 'adulterated' has been defined in very broad terms in Section 2(ia). The expression 'food' has been defined as follows in Section 2(v): "food means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes- (a) any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of, human food, (b) any flavouring matter or condiments, and (c) any other article which the Central Government may, having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, as food for the purposes of this Act; Section 7 of the Act has prohibited manufacture for sale or storage or selling or distributing any adulterated or misbranded food among other things. Section 10 has comprehensively set out the powers and functions of the Food Inspector. The principal amongst them is the power to take samples of any article of food from any person selling such article; to send such sample for analysis to the Public Analyst of the local area within whose jurisdiction such sample has been taken; to prohibit the same of any article of food in \ the interest of public health with the previous approval of the Local (Health) Authority having jurisdiction in the local area concerned, or with the previous approval of the Food (Health) Authority; power to enter and inspect where any article of food is manufactured or stored for sale and seize the articles of food and also the books of account or other documents which might be considered as helpful for establishing adulteration of the food etc. The procedure to be followed by the Food Inspectors upon taking a sample of food for analysis has been spelt out in great detail in Section 11. The steps required to be taken upon receipt of the report of the Public Analyst has been spelt out in Section 13. To the extent relevant for our enquiry, Section 13 reads as under: "13. (1) The Public Analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. To the extent relevant for our enquiry, Section 13 reads as under: "13. (1) The Public Analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. (2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of ,the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. (2A) When an application is made to the Court under sub-section (2), the Court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part or parts of the sample kept by the said Authority and upon such requisition being made, the said Authority shall forward the part or parts of the sample of the Court within a period of five days from the date of receipt of such requisition. (2B) On receipt of the part or parts of the sample from the Local (Health) Authority under sub-section (2A), the Court shall first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 are intact and the signature or thumb impression, as the case may be, is not tampered with, and dispatch the part or, as the case may be, one of the parts of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall thereupon send a certificate to the Court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the part of the sample specifying the result of the analysis. (2C) Where two parts of the sample have been sent to the Court and only one part of the sample has been sent by the Court to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2B), the Court shall, as soon as practicable, return the remaining part to the Local (Health) Authority and that Authority shall destroy that part after the certificate from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory has been received by the Court : Provided that where the Part of the sample sent by the Court to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is lost or damaged, the Court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part of the sample, if any, retained by it to the Court and on receipt thereof, the Court shall proceed in the manner provided in sub-section (2B). (2D) Until the receipt of the certificate of the result of the analysis from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, the Court shall not continue with the proceedings pending before it in relation to the prosecution. 5. Section 14 provides that no manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in any article of food shall sell such article to any vendor unless he also gives a warranty in writing in the prescribed form about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor. The proviso to Section 14 clarifies that a bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in, such article to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such person under this section. 6. Thus a fiction about the warranty had been incorporated in the form of a bill; cash memorandum or invoice evidencing the sale of any article of food. An obligation has been cast on every vendor of an article of food, when required, to disclose to the Food Inspector the name, address and other particulars of person from whom he purchased the article of food, in terms of Section 14A. Section 16 of the Act dealt with the penalties liable to be imposed on every such person who is responsible for the manufacture, storage or sale or distribution of, any article of food which is adulterated or misbranded or which is prohibited under the Act. Section 16 of the Act dealt with the penalties liable to be imposed on every such person who is responsible for the manufacture, storage or sale or distribution of, any article of food which is adulterated or misbranded or which is prohibited under the Act. Section 16(a) made it clear that all offences under subsection (1) of Section 16 will be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply to such trials. Section 17 dealt with the offences committed by companies. Section 20 and 20A, since will have a bearing upon the present controversy read as under: "20. Cognizance and trial of offences (1) No prosecution for an offence under the Act, not being an offence under Section 14 or Section 14A shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorized in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government: Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by purchaser or recognized consumer association referred to in Section 12, if he or it produces in Court a copy of the report of the Public Analyst along with the complaint. (2) No Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class shall try any offence under this Act. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence punishable under subsection (1AA) of Section 16 shall be cognizable and non-bailable. 20A. Power of Court to implead manufacturer, etc.-Where at any time during the trial of any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by any person, not being the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, the Court is satisfied, on the evidence adduced before it, that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with that offence, then, the Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in Section 20 proceed against him as though a prosecution had been instituted against him under Section 20. Rule 9 of the Rules made under this Act, has listed out the duties of the Food Inspector, while Rule 12 required the Food Inspector to give notice of his intention to take sample of an article for the purpose of analysis in writing in Form VI, not only to the person from whom he takes the sample and simultaneously by appropriate means also to the persons whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A of the Act. The warranty required to be furnished by the manufacturers has been prescribed in Form VIA. 7. A perusal of the above referred provisions will make the position clear that while a Food Inspector has been empowered and authorised to collect any sample of a food item and subject the same for analysis and also consequentially launch prosecution for the offences committed under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act, but, however, at what point to time, apart from the principal vendor from whom the Food Inspector has purchased the adulterated article of food has been subject the manufacturer of his nominee or a dealer or a distributor to prosecution. It is significant to notice that Section 20A has been introduced by way of insertion in terms of Section 12 of the Amending Act 49 of 1964 with effect from 1.3.1965. While considering the scope of Section 20A, the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Om prakash Shivprakash v. K.I. Kuriakose, 2000 (1) ALD (Crl.) 633 (SC) = AIR 1999 SC 3870 , in paragraph 12 held as under : "12. The above scrutiny of the relevant provisions reveals that the trial of the offences under the Act begins when the Magistrate asks the accused whether he pleads guilty or not as envisaged in Section 251 of the Code, if the Magistrate opts to hold summary trial. Hence, evidence in a trial under the Act can be adduced only after recording the plea of the accused as envisaged in the said section. Thus, it is clear that a Magistrate can imp-lead any person under Section 20-A of the Act only after reaching the stage envisaged ini Section 254(1) of the Code." In fact, the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R. Sahai, AIR 1979 SC 1544 , has been approvingly quoted. Thus, it is clear that a Magistrate can imp-lead any person under Section 20-A of the Act only after reaching the stage envisaged ini Section 254(1) of the Code." In fact, the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R. Sahai, AIR 1979 SC 1544 , has been approvingly quoted. In the aforementioned case, it has been held that the power under Section 20A of the Act cannot be invoked before the stage of adducing evidence in t'1e trial, nor can it be invoked after the conclusion of the trial. 8. Its no doubt true that Section 20A deals with a situation where during the course of the trial it occurs that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned and connected with the offence, then the Court may proceed against them in the same manner as if, the prosecution has been instituted against him or them under Section 20. 9. In M/s. Bhagwan Das Jagdish Chander v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 1309, the Supreme Court has examined the question whether a joint trial of the vendor, the distributor and the manufacturer for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is illegal as well as the scope of Section 20A of the said Act and held as follows in para 12 thereof: "12. We are not impressed by the argument that a distributor could only be prosecuted for selling without giving a warranty to a vendor which is a separate offence under Section 14 of the Act. It is clear from Section 14 itself that a manufacturer as well as a distributor can sell. The definition of "sale", given in sub-section (iii) of the Act, is wide enough to include every kind of seller. Every seller can be prosecuted of an offence created by Section 7 of the Act which prohibits a sale as well as distribution of an adulterated article of food. The mere fact that, for the purposes of Section 14, the person who could be the last seller, in the sense that he sells to the actual consumer, is described as "the vendor", could not affect a liability for an offence under Section 7 of the Act of a sale of an article of food which is found to be adulterated. A sale of an article of food by a "manufacturer, distributor, or dealer" is a distinct and separable offence. A sale of an article of food by a "manufacturer, distributor, or dealer" is a distinct and separable offence. Section 14 was not meant to carve out an exemption in favour of a distributor or a manufacturer who sells articles of food, found to be adulterated, irrespective of the question whether any warranty was given for them. It is true that the manufacture of an adulterated article of food for sale is also an offence under Section 7 of the Act. But, neither Section 7 nor Section 14 of the Act bards trial of several offences by the same accused persons, be he a manufacturer, a distributor, or a last seller, referred to as "the vendor" in Section 14 of the Act." While dealing with the ancillary question relating to what constitutes the "same transaction," it is held in the aforementioned judgment as under: "19. In our opinion, considering the character of the offence and tire nature of the activities of manufacturers and distributors, who generally deal in bulk, and of the ordinary vendor, who sells particular items to the consumer, the common link, which would provide the unity of purpose or design so as to weave their separate acts or omissions into one transaction, has to be their common intention that a particular article, found adulterated, should reach the consumer as food. Ignorance of the fact of adulteration is immaterial. In order to justify a joint trial of accused their common object or intention to sell the article as food is enough. In such a case of a strict liability created by statute, for safeguarding public health, the mental connection between the acts and omissions of the manufacturer, the distributor, and the last vendor would be provided simply by the common design or intention that an article of food, found to be adulterated, should reach and be used as food by the consumer. Each person dealing with such an article has to prove that he has .shown due care and caution by taking prescribed steps in order to escape criminal liability. Otherwise, if one may so put it, a mens rea shared by them is presumed from a common carelessness exhibited by them. Each person dealing with such an article has to prove that he has .shown due care and caution by taking prescribed steps in order to escape criminal liability. Otherwise, if one may so put it, a mens rea shared by them is presumed from a common carelessness exhibited by them. Again, a sale at an anterior stage by a manufacturer or distributor to a vendor, and the sale by the vendor to the actual consumer could be viewed as linked with each other as cause and effect. 20. We think that the activities of the manufacturer, the distributor, and the retail seller are sufficiently connected, in such a case of sale of an article of food found to be adulterated, by a unity of purpose and design, and, therefore, of a transaction, so as to make their joint trial possible in a suitable case. But, at the same time we think that, there a joinder of several accused persons concerned with dealing in different ways with the same adulterated article of food at different stages is likely to jeopardize a fair trial, a separate trial ought to be ordered. It is not proper to acquit or discharge an accused person on this ground alone. The ordering of a separate trial, ill a case where prejudice to an accused from a joint trial is apprehended, is enough. Indeed, we can go even further and say that, ordinarily, they ought to be separately tried. But a joint trial of such accused persons is not ab initio illegal. It can take place in suitable cases. 24. The result is that, to think that, in a suitable case, a vendor, a distributor, and a manufacturer could be tried together provided the allegations made before the Court show that there are connecting links between their activities so as to constitute the same transaction. It can take place in suitable cases. 24. The result is that, to think that, in a suitable case, a vendor, a distributor, and a manufacturer could be tried together provided the allegations made before the Court show that there are connecting links between their activities so as to constitute the same transaction. The connecting links, in a case such as the one before us, could be provided by firstly, the fact that a sale at an anterior stage could be viewed as the cause of the subsequent sale; secondly, the allegation that each of the accused parted with the article of food when it was in an adulterated stage; and, thirdly, by the common object of the manufacturer, the distributor and the vendor, that the article should reach the consumer to be used as food The third and last mentioned link seems decisive and must tilt the balance in favour of legality of a joint trial of the parties concerned. But, we are also conscious of the fact that Courts cannot ignore broader requirements of justice." Justice Alagiriswamy while agreeing with the view expressed by the other two learned Judges had said this: ".. ..... ... .. .But before the manufacturer, the distributor and the vendor could be tried jointly, it must be alleged that the manufactured food was adulterated when the manufacturer passed it on to the distributor and it was also adulterated when the distributor passed it on to the vendor and that it was also adulterated when the vendor sold it to the consumer. It is not necessary to prove that the article of food was adulterated at all the three stages for the purpose of deciding the validity of the charge being............ At that stage the question of proof does not come in..........But without that allegation there cannot be said to be unity of purpose of common object or common intention on the part of all of them to manufacture, distribute or sell the adulterated food......... Selling ghee by itself is not an offence; only selling adulterated ghee is an offence...........It would not be the same transaction............. unless the ghee was in fact adulterated at every one of these stages..............then it would be the same transaction and they could all be jointly tried. Selling ghee by itself is not an offence; only selling adulterated ghee is an offence...........It would not be the same transaction............. unless the ghee was in fact adulterated at every one of these stages..............then it would be the same transaction and they could all be jointly tried. In the absence of an allegation that the ghee distributed by the appellant to the vendor Lakshmi Narain was adulterated, both of them cannot be tried together..........., there cannot be a joint trial..........."(emphasis added) The above decision of the Supreme Court puts the issue beyond any pale of doubt. While a joint trial of the manufacturer, distributor, dealer and vendor is permissible, but none the less if the link is missing amongst each of them the only recourse mat is available is to examine the evidence that has come on record during the trial, which if permits the manufacturer, distributor and dealer also to be prosecuted, then the power under Section 20A has got to be exercised. It has therefore to be understood that" at the first instance, unless the Food Inspector has picked up the sample for analysis, right from the place where it is manufactured itself, he has to necessarily prosecute the manufacturer or dealer or distributor or agent only upon prima facie establishing their link to the alleged adulterated food article which has been sold or offered for sale Therefore, at the initial stage itself the manufacturer or distributor or dealer cannot be straight away prosecuted on the strength and basis of the information gathered in terms of Section 14A of the Act. We therefore answer the reference holding that the learned Single Judge who decided Crl. Petition No.269 of 2003 on 12.3.2006 has taken a correct view of the matter. 10. We also make it clear that quashing of the charge at this stage against A2 and A3 does not preclude the Magistrate to exercise the power available under Section 20A of the Act based upon the evaluation of the evidence gathered during the trial, but before the same is concluded. 11. The reference is accordingly answered. The criminal petition is therefore allowed subject to the power under Section 20A of the Act being preserved.