ORDER
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.
1. Revision petitioner who had not involved himself in any crime received a summons from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha directing him to appear as one of the accused in C.C. 36 of 1984. He seeks to quash the same.
2. The above complaint was filed by the Food Inspector alleging that one K. V. Joy committed certain offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the proceedings were initiated again this K. V. Joy. While so on 17-7-1984 the Food Inspector filed a petition stating that the accused Joy was not the real culprit but his father, the present revision petitioner. The learned Magistrate allowed the petition and impleaded him as a co-accused and issued summons against him,
3. It is not made clear under what provision the Magistrate had impleaded the revision petitioner as one of the accused. Obviously it is not under Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, since the petitioner is neither manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any food article. The other relevant provision is Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which empowers the Magistrate to proceed against any person not being the accused and the same can be invoked only on fulfilment of certain conditions.
4. Under Section 319 of the Code, the court can proceed against any person only if it is proved that there is some evidence to show that the person has committed an offence and for which such person could be tried together with the accused. The court will have to objectively satisfy itself that evidence or the circumstance warrant that such person should also face trial and there must be speaking order to that effect. This section gives a discretion to the court to proceed against a person who is not an accused at the trial and this power of the court is an extraordinary one and it should only be used very sparingly. Evidently that provision is not at all applicable to the facts of the case.
5. In the instant case the stand taken by the complainant seems to be that the food article was sold by the present revision petitioner and he by mistake filed complaint against one K. V, Joy. If that be so the proper remedy in to proceed against the present revision petitioner separately and the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence when a complaint is filed against that person. He cannot be impleaded as a co-accused in the case which is pending against K. V. Joy. The whole proceedings taken against the revision petitioner are illegal and therefore liable to be set aside. The revision petition is allowed and the order issuing summons against the revision petitioner is quashed.