MANGAT RAM Vs. STATE AND NORTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Mangat Ram was convicted of an offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for selling adulterated article of food by Shri J.D. Kapoor, Metropolitan Magistrate vide his judgment dated 20th May, 1977 and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. He preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence but the same were maintained by Shn Joginder Nath, Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 27th Oct., 1977. Hence he has come up in revision against the judgment of the Appellate Court.

(2.) Concisely the facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner sells cooked food by hawking at railway platform, Delhi Main, Railway Station. On 31st of Aug., 1975, at about 11-30 A.M., Shri S.P. Soni, Food Inspector, Railway Department, purchased 600 gms. of atta (wheat flour) as sample for analysis as per procedure Jaid in the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The said sample was taken out of about 17 Kgms. of atta kept in a tin container by him for preparation of chapaties to be sold to the customers. However, the petitioner did not accept the price on the plea that the same ha i been supplied to him by the Railway authorities, and it was not meant for sale as such. Atta. was divided into three equal parts and one counter part was sent to the Public Analyst on the next following date for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst revealed that the same was adulterated due to the presence of insect-infestation, there being four living and one dead insect present at the time of analysis which was done on 4th of Sept., 1975. Hence, prosecution was launched by the Food Inspector against the petitioner after obtaining the consent of Dr. R N. Kapur who had been designated as 'Local Authority', Northern Railway by the Central Government vide notification dated 23rd of April, 1968, in terms of Sec. 2(viii) of the Act.

(3.) The principal submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before me is that Dr R.N. Kapur not having been prescribed as 'Local Authority' as contemplated by sub-section (viii) of section 2 of the Act read with sub-section (xii) thereof he was not at all competent to accord consent to the prosecution of the petitioner as contemplated in Sec. 20 of the Act. His grievance is that this objection which goes to the root of the case and renders the prosecution of the petitioner void ab initio was raised both before the trial Court as well as appellate Court but it was not considered by either of them in proper perspective.