M RAMASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A.K. Kumaraswamy, Advocate for the petitioners and of Mr. Munirathina Naidu for the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State-respondent, he court made the following order :- The petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 248 of 1985 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erode, against the petitioners.

(2.) The respondent, Food Inspector, Erode Municipality, has launched this prosecution against the petitioners as partners for an offence under sections 7(1) and 16(l)(a)(i) read with section 2(la) and (a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food. Adulteration Act. as amended. On 13/2/1985 the complainant had visited M/s Suguna Saiva Unavagam taken a sample of milk intended for sale and sent it for chemical analysis. It was found to be deficient in solids-not fat to the extent of 23% and was therefore, adulterated. Hence the prosecution.

(3.) The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the hotel M/s. Suguna Saiva Unavagam is situate in ward No.2 of Erode Town, while the respondent. Food Inspector, who went there and took the sample, was the Sanitary Inspector of Ward. No. 4 and he had no right to inspect the hotel and take a sample. According to the petitioners, therefore, the prosecution must fail. Reliance is sought to be placed on an earlier decision of mind in B. Venkatasubba v. Food Inspector Tiruchriapalli Municipality. As the respondent is the Sanitary Inspector of Ward No.4, his power to act as Food Inspector is restricted to that area over which he had already exercised jurisdiction as Sanitary Inspector prior to his appointment as Food Inspector. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that, as Food -Inspector, he has every right to take samples from the entire areas of the Erode Municipality cannot be accepted. His jurisdiction must be restricted to the area over which he was the Sanitary Inspector. As otherwise, there is bound to be conflict and overlapping of jurisdiction between the officers occupying similar posts in different areas within the Municipality as pointed out by the Allahabad High Court in Ram Dularey v. The State2. It follows that the respondent had no jurisdiction to take samples from this hotel and the prosecution must fail.