Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1015 (HP)

Cremica Food Industries Ltd. v. State of H. P

2015-08-04

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
Judgment : Respondent No. 2, despite service, omitted to appear either in person or through counsel. Hence, proceeded against ex parte. 2. The authorized Food Inspector had instituted a complaint under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 with an enunciation therein of three sealed packets of sauce 700 grams each bearing label of “Kanoor new Mexican Salsa” having been seized from the premises of accused/respondent No. 2. The sample of the aforesaid seized packets of sauce was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst concerned who on carrying out the requisite tests found the sample to be adulterated in as much as the quantity of Sugar used in the product was not printed/specified on its label whereas specification of the quantum of sugar in the product aforesaid was warranted to be printed on the label of the sample of product “Kanoor new Mexican Salsa” as seized by the authorized Food Inspector from the premises of the accused/respondent No. 2. 3. The counsel for the accused/respondent No. 2 during the course of the recording of evidence by the learned trial Court on the charges for which the accused/respondent No.2 was facing trial before it, instituted an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate aforesaid averring therein that the aforesaid purported adulterated product stood purchased by it from Mrs Bector’s Food Specialties Ltd. Besides an averment was made in the application moved by the learned counsel for the accused/respondent No.2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Kasauli constituted in Annexure P-6, that the petitioner while being the manufacturer of the purportedly adulterated food item as such its being added in the array of accused was imperative as well as essential. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Kasauli on being seized of the application instituted before him at the instance of the accused/respondent No.2 under Section 20 (A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for impleading in the array of accused the petitioner herein, proceeded to, even without issuing a notice to the petitioner herein for eliciting from it its response to the application, only after hearing the authorized Food Inspector and the counsel for accused/respondent No. 2, rendered the impugned orders. At the outset itself the rendition of the impugned order by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 1, Kasauli, whereby it directed the impleadment of the petitioner in the array of accused even without serving or issuing notice to the latter, as such, it in non-conformity with the principles of natural justice mandating that the petitioner herein proposed to be added in the array of accused was legally obliged to be heard before the rendition of the impugned orders by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 1, Kasauli, having proceeded to in flagrant non-compliance or non-observance of the principles of natural justice, constituted by the fact of its having proceeded to render the impugned order even without hearing it hence condemned it unheard, vitiates it with the vice of nonconformity with the principles of natural justice. 4. Apart therefrom the arraying of or adding of the petitioner in the array of accused by the learned trial Magistrate in its impugned order besides also suffers from a grave infirmity embedded in the fact that even when as portrayed by Annexure P-3 of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Mumbai 400020 being the manufacturer of the purportedly adulterated food item seized by the authorized Food Inspector from the premises of the accused/respondent No.2, the learned trial Magistrate untenably discarded the aforesaid portrayal in Annexure P-3, hence unwarrantedly concluded that the petitioner rather was the manufacturer of the purportedly adulterated food item, besides as such erroneously held that its addition in the array of accused was just and imperative for the continuation or progress of the trial of the offences committed by the retailer. Besides the learned trial magistrate having discarded the portrayal in Annexure P-3, the emanation in the cross-examination of the Food Inspector, of the Manufacturer of the purportedly adulterated food item named “Kanoor new Mexican Salsa” seized by him from the premises of respondent No.2/accused being M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Mumbai construed in conjunction with the fact of a pronunciation in Annexure P-9, moved by the counsel for the accused/respondent No.2, of M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Mumbai being the manufacturer of the purportedly adulterated food item adds force and vigor to an apt conclusion that the addition by the learned trial Magistrate in the impugned order of the petitioner herein as an accused was grossly unjust. Concomitantly also the continuation of the trial against the petitioner herein along with the accused/respondent No.2 for the latter having committed offences under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 would be highly improper, inexpedient and unjust. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. In sequel the name of the petitioner herein is ordered to be deleted from the array of accused. In aftermath, the learned trial Judge is directed to drop the proceedings against the petitioner herein. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of as also the pending applications, if any.