SHOBHEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected matters in which the same question of law is involved, "which has been referred for decision to this Bench. In Criminal Revision No. 90 of 1971 the applicant was selling milk without a licence on 12th March, 1968. The contention of the applicant's counsel in this case was that no rules have teen framed under Section 24 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act appointing an authority, who could issue a licence and, as such, it was not incumbent upon the applicant to obtain a licence for the sale before effecting sale of milk.

(2.) IN Criminal Reference No. 165 of 1972 the applicant was manufacturing edible oil without a requisite licence as required under Rule 50 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. A similar point was raised in this case.

(3.) THIS saving clause is very explicit in its expression that the provisions of law with regard to the Food adulteration as they existed prior to the existence of Act, 1954, would remain unaffected, if they were not inconsistent or repugnant to the provisions of this Act. Brother Kunj Behari Srivastava, J. has referred to the various sections and rules under the Pure Food Act, which relate to the appointment of an authority for the purpose of issue of a licence. Rule 104 framed thereunder prescribes that for purposes of granting licences the Medical Officer of Health appointed for that area shall be the licensing officer. We are not satisfied that such a rule is incon­sistent with any provision of this Act. As such the Health Officer would be the appropriate authority empowered under the Act to issue licences for articles covered by the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In the Single Judge case relied upon by the applicants counsel the relevant provisions of the U.P. Pure Food Act, 1950 and Rules have not been taken into consideration. As such, we are of the view that the Single Judge decision does not lay down the correct law and it must, therefore, be overruled. There being no incon-sistency at all between Rule 50 (2) fram­ed under the Pure Food Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the said rule still continues to be good law. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it was incumbent upon the applicants to have obtained a licence so that he could sell milk, or edible oil, as the case may be.