LALLAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LALLAN Prasad, who has been convicted for an offence under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the Act) and sentenced to undergo RI for three months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo RI for three months by Shri X, S. Singhal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, has filed this appeal.

(2.) A special drive for checking the food stuffs in the district of Azamgarh was under-taken from 2nd to 12th of December, 1975 by Dr. P. B. Ghosh, DMOH. In that connection Food Inspector Surendra Singh visited the shop of the appellant on 10-12-75 at about 12.30 P.M. (noon) and took a sample of 'KHOBE MEN BANI GAJAR KI BARFI' on payment of requisite price and after observing requirements of all the relevant rules. A phial of sample Barfi was handed over to the appellant. Another phial was sent to the Public Analyst, who found that the sample contained an unpermitted coaltar dye colouring, namely Metanil Yellow CI. Dr. Ghosh sanctioned prosecution of the appellant and Food Inspector Surendra Singh filed complaint against Lallan Prasad.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Food Inspector Surendra Singh was not competent to take the sample of Barfi of the appellant. Surendra Singh was Food Inspector of Pardah Block in the District of Azamgarh. He was not a Food Inspector of Qasba Mahmoodabad. This contention of the learned counsel appears to be well founded. A perusal of the statement of Surendra Singh PW 1 shows that he was Food Inspector for Pardah Block. He did not say that he was Food Inspector for the entire district or was also Food Inspector for Qasba Mahmoodabad. From his statement it is also clear that his services were requisitioned by Dr. Ghosh, DMOH to assist in the special drive, which was launched. It has not been disputed before me that Dr. Ghosh did not have the requisite power and authority under the law to appoint a person as Food Inspector for any area or to extend that area of a Food Inspector even within the district in which he (Dr. Ghosh) was exercising powers as DMOH. Under section 9 of the Act only the Central Government or the State Government by notification in the official gazette, may appoint such persons as it thought fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be Food Inspectors for any local areas, It was the duty of the prosecution to have led evidence to show that Surendra Singh had been appointed as Food Inspector for the town of Mahmoodabad. No evidence was led on this point. Hence it must be held that Surendra Singh (PW 1) had no authority to act as Food Inspector in the town of Mahmoodabad on 10-12-75 and to take the sample of Barfi of the appellant.