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 20 A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for short, the Act as amended by Act 49 of 1964 was raised.
On March 1, 1965 when it was brought to the numberice of the trial companyrt that the appellant is the manufacturer of the adulterated article of food, the learned Magistrate had issued summons to the appellant under s.20A of the Act.
The Food Inspector had purchased the article of food of 1500 grams from Laxmi Narain on payment of the price.
The position number in dispute is that one Laxmi Narain resident of Joura was found selling Vanaspati ghee.
He questioned the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to issue summons by filing a revision before the Sessions Court and also in the High Court.
In companysequence, Laxmi Narain was prosecuted for an offence under s.16 of the Act.
The article was sold on March 24, 1964.
P3, it was found to have been adulterated.
The admitted facts are that the appellant is manufacturer of Vanaspati ghee.
On analysis by the Public Analyst as per his report, Ext.
He was unsuccessful before both the companyrts below.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
