# DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD v. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1995] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 566
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1995-09-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 1980
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, B.L. Hansaria
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/delhi-cloth-and-general-mills-co-ltd-v-state-of-m-p-and-ors-13263
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
S.20-A/s. 319(3)-Prosecution of other persons than accused-Accused
found selling adulterated vanaspati ghee-Trial--Evidence indicating that
appellant was manufacturer of adulterated a1ticle-lssuance of summons to
manufacturer-Held, Court is empowered to proceed agaiiist such manufacturer, distributor or dealer alongwith the person already before the Court, as
D if prosecution has initially been instituted against said manufacturer etc. under
s.20 notwithstanding anything contained in s.319(3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
E
F
Doctrine of autref ois acquit-Significance.
The appellant was a manufacturer of Vanaspati ghee. One person
selling the Vanaspati ghee was prosecuted for an offence under s.16 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as the article of food was found
to have been adulterated. When it was brought to the notice of the trial
court that the appellant was the manufacturer of the adulterated article
of food, the Magistrate issued summons to the appellant under s.20A of
the Act. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the said order before the
Sessions Court as well as before the High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant
filed the appeal by special leave.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that though the
G magistrate had power, on the date when the complaint was lodged before
him, to issue summons to the manufacturer, but he could not proceed
during the trial on the premise that the accused was only a dealer of the
appellant; that there was no material that the accused was not a vendor,
it could not be jointly tried. It was also contended that the accused being
H a dealer of the appellant, s.20A of the Act had no application as the section
566
DELHI CLOTH AND GEN. MILLS CO. LTD. v. STATE
567
provides for trial of a person not being a dealer.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. There was no embargo on the Magistrate during the
trial of the offence to issue notice to the appellant manufacturer for
holding joint trial. Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954 clearly provides that during the trial for any of the offences under
the act alleged to have been committed by any person, when it comes to
the notice of the Magistrate, from the evidence adduced, that the manufac·
turer, distributor or dealer of that article of food, which is the subject
mater of adulteration, is also concerned with the offence, then the Court
may proceed against such manufacturer, distributor or dealer as if
prosecution has initially been instituted against him under section 20 of
the Act. [571-8, 570-C]
A
B
c
1.2. The Act advisedly made a person who sells adulterated article of
food liable to be prosecuted for the offence of adulteration of the article of D
food. In view of the language of Section 20A of the Act, whatever is contained
in sub-section (3) of Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would
not stand in the way of the Magistrate to proceed at a trial against any
person i.e. the original accused, and against others mentioned in Section
20A, Joint trial for the same offence is permitted. The object appears to be
that in a case where common evidence discloses that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with the offence for which the prosecution was launched against a person from whom the article of food was
purchased, to avoid multiplicity of prosecution and also keeping in view
the doctrine of autref ois acquit the Legislature introduced s.20A to have
joint trial. (570-C, E-G]
1.3. The concept of vendor and vendee is known to civil law and
passing of the title in the goods is alien to the prosecution for an offence
under the Act. It cannot, therefore, be introduced in a trial for the offence
under the Act. (570-B]
2. Section 20A of the Act has mentioned about trial of commission of
the offence by any person; and if that person be not the manufacturer, distributor or dealer, s.20A permits

## Text

A
B
c
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD.
v.
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 12, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY
AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
S.20-A/s. 319(3)-Prosecution of other persons than accused-Accused
found selling adulterated vanaspati ghee-Trial--Evidence indicating that
appellant was manufacturer of adulterated a1ticle-lssuance of summons to
manufacturer-Held, Court is empowered to proceed agaiiist such manufacturer, distributor or dealer alongwith the person already before the Court, as
D if prosecution has initially been instituted against said manufacturer etc. under
s.20 notwithstanding anything contained in s.319(3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
E
F
Doctrine of autref ois acquit-Significance.
The appellant was a manufacturer of Vanaspati ghee. One person
selling the Vanaspati ghee was prosecuted for an offence under s.16 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as the article of food was found
to have been adulterated. When it was brought to the notice of the trial
court that the appellant was the manufacturer of the adulterated article
of food, the Magistrate issued summons to the appellant under s.20A of
the Act. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the said order before the
Sessions Court as well as before the High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant
filed the appeal by special leave.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that though the
G magistrate had power, on the date when the complaint was lodged before
him, to issue summons to the manufacturer, but he could not proceed
during the trial on the premise that the accused was only a dealer of the
appellant; that there was no material that the accused was not a vendor,
it could not be jointly tried. It was also contended that the accused being
H a dealer of the appellant, s.20A of the Act had no application as the section
566
DELHI CLOTH AND GEN. MILLS CO. LTD. v. STATE
567
provides for trial of a person not being a dealer.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. There was no embargo on the Magistrate during the
trial of the offence to issue notice to the appellant manufacturer for
holding joint trial. Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954 clearly provides that during the trial for any of the offences under
the act alleged to have been committed by any person, when it comes to
the notice of the Magistrate, from the evidence adduced, that the manufac·
turer, distributor or dealer of that article of food, which is the subject
mater of adulteration, is also concerned with the offence, then the Court
may proceed against such manufacturer, distributor or dealer as if
prosecution has initially been instituted against him under section 20 of
the Act. [571-8, 570-C]
A
B
c
1.2. The Act advisedly made a person who sells adulterated article of
food liable to be prosecuted for the offence of adulteration of the article of D
food. In view of the language of Section 20A of the Act, whatever is contained
in sub-section (3) of Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would
not stand in the way of the Magistrate to proceed at a trial against any
person i.e. the original accused, and against others mentioned in Section
20A, Joint trial for the same offence is permitted. The object appears to be
that in a case where common evidence discloses that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with the offence for which the prosecution was launched against a person from whom the article of food was
purchased, to avoid multiplicity of prosecution and also keeping in view
the doctrine of autref ois acquit the Legislature introduced s.20A to have
joint trial. (570-C, E-G]
1.3. The concept of vendor and vendee is known to civil law and
passing of the title in the goods is alien to the prosecution for an offence
under the Act. It cannot, therefore, be introduced in a trial for the offence
under the Act. (570-B]
2. Section 20A of the Act has mentioned about trial of commission of
the offence by any person; and if that person be not the manufacturer, distributor or dealer, s.20A permits trial of such manufacturer, distributor or
dealer also, alongwith the person already before the court. So, the fact
that the person being tried is a dealer would not make the section
E
F
G
non-operational. (570-H, 571-Al
H
568
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
385 of 1980
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.5.75 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Crl. Revn. 175 of 1968..
B
Ravindra Narain, Ashok, Sagar, O.P. Soni, for J.B.D. & Co. for the
c
D
E
F
Appellant.
A.K. Chitaley, Sakesh Kumar, U ma Nath Singh for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
By an order dated November 1, 1991 the matter was referred to a
Bench of three Judges since an important question of law relating interpretation of s.20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [for
short, 'the act'] as ainended by Act 49 of 1964 was raised.
The ~dmitted facts are that the appellant is manufacturer of
Vanaspati ghee. The position not in dispute is that one Laxini Narain
resident of Joura was found selling V ansaspati ghee. The Food Inspector
had purchased the article of food of 1500 grams from Laxrni Narayan on
payment of the price. On analysis by the Public Analyst as per his report,
Ext. P3, it was found to have been adulterated. In consequence, Laxrni
Narain was prosecuted for an offence under s.16 of the Act.
The article was sold on March 24, 1964. On March 1, 1965 when it
was brought to the notice of the trial court that the appellant is the
manufacturer of the adulterated artide of food, the learned Magistrate had
issued summons to the appellant under s.20A of the Act. He questioned
the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to issue summons by filing a revision
before the Sessions Court and also in the High Court. He was unsuccessful
before both the courts below. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
G
Learned counsel for the appellant candidly admitted that on march
24, 1964, i.e., the date on which the sample of the adulterated article of
food was sold, the appellant-company could also be prosecuted for alleged
adulteration of the article of food. But his contention is that during the
course of the trial, it could not be proceeded against it. His emphasis is
that the Magistrate has power, on the date when the complaint was lodged
H before him, to issue summons to the manufacturer, but the Magistrate
-
DELHI CLOTH AND GEN. MILLS CO. LTD. v. STATE
569
could not proceed during the trial on the premise that the accused Laxrni A
Narain is only a dealer of the appellant and that there is no material that
Laxmi Narain is a vendee on behalf of the appellant vendor; and as the
latter is not a vendor, he could not be jointly tried. We find no force in this
contention.
The punishing Section 16(1) postulates that subject to the provisious
of sub-section (1-A), if any person -
"(a) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf,
imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or
distributes any article of food -
(1) which is adulterated within the meaning of sub- clause (m) of
clause (ia) of Section 2 or misbranded within the meaning of clause
(ix) of that section or the sale of which is prohibited under any
provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder or by an· order
of the food (Health) Authority; ....... .
he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under
the provisions of Section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extent
to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one
thousand rupees; ............ .
Section 20-A empowers the Court to implead the manufacturer etc.
and provides as under :
'where at any time during the trial of any offence under the Act
alleged to have been committed by any person, not being the
manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, the court
B
c
D
E
F
is satisfied, on the evidence adduced before it, that such manufac- .
turer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with that offence,
then, the court may, notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3) of s.319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974), or in s.20 proceed against him as though a prosecution had G
been instituted against him under s.20."
(Emphasis supplied)
A reading of Section 20-A clrealy indicates that during the course of
the trial for any of the offence under the Act alleged to have been H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
committed by any person, if the evidence adduced before the Court discloses that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with
that offence, then the Court has been empowered, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of s.319 of the Code of Criminal procedure (for short, 'the Code') to treat as if the manufacturer, distributor or
B
c
the dealer is being proceeded against under Section 20 of the Act, as
originally instituted thereunder. The concept of vendor and vendee is
known to civil law and passing of the title in the goods is alien to the
prosecution for an offence under the Act. It cannot, therefore, be introduced in a trial for the. offence under the Act. The Act advisedly made a
person who sells adulterated article of food liable to be prosecuted for the
offence of adulteration of the ar-ticle of food. During the trial when it comes
to the notice of the Magistrate, from the evidence adduced, that the
manufacturer, distributor or dealer of that article of food, which fs the
subject matter of adulteration, is also concerned with the offence, then the
court has been empowered to proceed against such manufacturer, disD tributor or dealer as if prosecution has initially been instituted against him
under Section 20 of the Act. In fact, for general offences, Section 319(1)
of the Code empowers the court where during the course of enquiry or
trial of an offence, if it appears from the evidence that any person not being
accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried
E
F
G
together. with the accused, to proceed against such person for the offence
which he appears to have committed. In view of the language of Section
20-A of the Act, whatever is contained in sub-section(3) of Section 319 of
the Code would not stand in the way of the Magistrate to proceed at a trial
against any person, i.e., the original accused and against others mentioned
in Section 20-A. In other words, joint trail for the same offence is permitted. The object appears to be that in a case where common evidence
discloses that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with
the offence for which the prosecution was launched against a person from
whom the article of food was purchased, to avoid multiplicity of prosecution and also keeping in view the doctrine of autref ois acquit the Legislature
introduced s.20A to have joint trial.
The further contention that Laxtni Narayan being a dealer of the
appellant, Section 20A has no application, as it speaks of trial of a person
not being, inter alia, a dealer, has no merit, as the section has mentioned
about trial of commission of the offence by any person; and, if that person
H be not the manufacturer, distributor or dealer, Section 20A permits trial
DELHI CLOTH AND GEN. MILLS CO. LTD. v. STATE
571
of such manufacturer, distributor or dealer also, along with the person A
already before the court. So, the fact that the person being tried is a dealer
would not make the section non- operational.
In these circumstances, we are of the view that there was no embargo
on the Magistrate during the trial of the offence to issue notice to the
appellant manufacturer for holding joint trial.
B
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. We direct the Magistrate, 1st
Class Joura Distt. Morena, M.P., to proceed with the trial in Crl. Case No.
117/64, pending before him expeditiously since it is a long pending case.
R.P.
Appeal dismissed. C