FOOD INSPECTOR HEALTH DEPT LI T CHANDIGARH THE STATE UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH Vs. KRISHNA DHABA:RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for consideration in these appeals directed against order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is if the High Court was justified in quashing complaint filed under S. 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with R. 20 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) Reason for quashing the complaints were its filing by the Inspectors who it has been held. were not persons authorised in law. It was held in one case that the Chief Medical Officer having been authorised to file the complaint by a notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration he could not delegate his authority further in favour of the Inspector. In the other, the Court found that launching of prosecution and giving consent for launching prosecution were separate and independent functions. Since the notification issued by the Administration under S.20(1) of the Act authorised the Medical Officer Chandigarh to institute prosecution, only he could not give consent. Consequently the complaint filed with his consent was by a person not authorised under law and it could not be taken cognisance of.

(3.) Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act reads as under: