STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. HANIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was convicted for an offence under S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 37 of 1954, for short 'the Act', and was sentenced to undergo 6 months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- with usual default clause. On appeal the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. But on revision the High Court set aside the conviction solely on the ground that Dr. S. B. Singh, Public Analyst, had no jurisdiction to analyse the food Article. It was B. S. Garg, Public Analyst, Varanasi and Allahabad region, alone had the power. Consequently the conviction on the basis of the report of Dr. S.B. Singh that the milk was adulterated was held without jurisdiction and authority of law. Accordingly the High Court acquitted the respondent by judgment dated February 2, 1981. This appeal by special leave arises against this judgment.

(2.) The main question is whether Dr. S. B. Singh had jurisdiction over the Allahabad area to analyse the articles of food. Section 8 of the Act reads thus:

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for respondent which also found favour with the High Court is that by the Notification dated February 15, 1975, Varanasi and Allahabad region is 'a local area' assigned by the State Govt. in the Official Gazette to Shri B. S. Garg, Asstt. Public Analyst who was appointed as a Public Analyst to the State Govt. for that local area. By necessary implication Dr. S. B. Singh ceased to have jurisdiction over that local area and thereby his report of analysis is without jurisdiction. The prosecution based thereon and the conviction resulted pursuant thereto is without jurisdiction and a nullity. We find no substance in the contention. The Notification dated Feb. 15, 1975 is only in continuation of the Notification dated June 23, 1972, not in supersession thereof. As a fact, the notification dated June 23, 1972 is in supersession of earlier Notification dated August 7, 1970. Therefore, when Shri B. S. Garg, Asstt. Public Analyst was appointed as a Public Analyst to Varanasi and Allahabad Region under Notification dated Feb. 15, 1975, it was not in supersession of the Notification dated June 23, 1972, appointing Dr. S. B. Singh as Public Analyst for the whole of Uttar Pradesh State. The later notification was in addition to the earlier notification. On principle also, it is difficult to give acceptance to the contention, of the respondent for the reason that S. 8 postulates appointment of more than one Public Analyst for such local areas as may be assigned to them by the Central or State Govt. as the case may be. Thereby it is open to the State Govt. to appoint more than one Public Analyst to any local area or areas and both would co-exist to have power and jurisdiction to analyse an article or articles of food covered under the Act to find whether the same is adulterated. Accordingly, we hold that in addition to Dr. S. B. Singh, who was appointed as Public Analyst for the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh as one single local area for the purpose of the Act, Shri B. S. Garg, Asstt. Public Analyst, was appointed as Public Analyst for Varanasi and Allahabad region comprising of Districts of Varanasi, Gazipur, Mirzapur, Jaunpur and Ballia and Allahabad region comprising of districts of Allahabad, Fatehpur,Kanpur, Farrukhabad and Etawah, which shall be deemed to be one single local area for the purpose of the Act. Thereby both the officers have power and jurisdiction to analyse articles of food covered under the Act and submit a report in that behalf to the local authorities or the Inspector of Food, as the case may be, to take appropriate action under the Act, based on the result of the report so submitted. Therefore, the report sent by Dr. S. B. Singh is perfectly within his jurisdiction and the trial based on the report and conviction recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the Sessions Court is not vitiated by any error of law or jurisdiction. This was the only point on which the High Court allowed the revision case and set aside the conviction and sentence.