SHAMBHU DAYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by special leave by Sambhu Dayal against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad allowing an appeal by the Government of U. P. and setting aside the order of acquittal and restoring the conviction under Ss. 8 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalaun.

(2.) On 1st Nov., 1966 Shri Raja Ram Bhatt, the Food Inspector, went to the village and found the appellant Shambhu Dayal bringing cow's milk to Orai for sale. The Food Inspector served a notice on the petitioner and took sample of the milk weighing 660 grams against cash payment of 0.60 P. He divided it in three equal parts and kept each part in a different bottle. He added 16 drops of formalin in each bottle and then sealed the same. One of the sealed bottles was given to the petitioner. Another bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Lucknow for analysis. The Public Analysts submitted his report dated 14th Dec., 1966 giving his opinion that the sample was deficient in non-fatty solid contents by about 15 per cent. The charge-sheet was filed on 5th Feb., 1967 by the Food Inspector after obtaining the sanction of the District Medical Officer of Health, Jalaun at Orai. The appellant pleaded not guilty and denied that he had sold the milk. According to him he was taking the milk to one Pandey of village Kharra when the Food Inspector took some of it without making any payment to him. The trial court accepted the case of the prosecution and on 10th November, 1967 convicted the appellant under S. 8 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to six months' regroups imprisonment. The appellant preferred Criminal Appeal to the Court of Session. By its judgement dated 12th Oct., 1968 the Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. The State of U. P. preferred an appeal to the High Court of Allahabad. A Divisional Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and restored the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial court.

(3.) Miss Meera Bali, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant raised three contentions. She submitted that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act came into froce in 1954 and before the amending Act 49 of 1964 came into force the power to appoint the Public Analyst and Food Inspector rested with the State Government only. After the amending Act, Act 49 of 1964, Ss. 8 and 9 were substituted by new Ss. 8 and 9 which provided that the Central Government or the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint a Public Analyst and a Food Inspector. The amending Act came into force in 1964. The State Government by notification dated 15th April, 1968, appointed Food Inspectors with effect from 1st March, 1965 and by notification dated 23rd March, 1968 appointed Dr. R. S. Srivastava as the Public Analyst with effect from 1st March, 1965. The submission of the learned counsel is that when the offence took place on 1st Nov. 1966 neither the Food Inspector nor the Public Analyst was empowered to function as Food Inspector or Public Analyst as the notification was made very much later on 15th April, 1968 and 23rd March, 1968 respectively. It was submitted that the notification cannot give retrospective effect to the appointment from 1st March, 1965.