GYANENDRA NATH MITTAL Vs. DAMODHAR BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by Gyanendra Nath Mittal against the dismissal of his complaint under Sections 456 and 504, I. P. C., against Sri Damodar Bhatt, District Medical Officer of Health, Pauri, on the ground that it was not maintainable for want of sanction under Section 197, Cr. P. C.

(2.) The opposite party was the District Medical Officer of Health at Pauri. Under a notification of the local Government all Medical Officers of Health were appointed ex officio Inspectors for the purpose of inspection of retail shops in their respective jurisdiction. The applicant held a licence for the sale of drugs other than poisonous upto 7-8-1953 when it was cancelled by the opposite party. It is alleged that on 21-8-1953, Dr. Bhatt entered the house of the applicant for the purpose of searching it in spite of the protest of the applicant and abused him during the course of the search. The applicant filed the complaint against Dr. Bhatt with respect to committing the offences under Sections 456 and 504, I. P. C.

(3.) Three points have been raised for the applicant. The first is that the notification appointing the District Medical Officers of Health ex officio Inspectors under the Drugs Act (Act XXIII of 1940), is bad as it makes no reference to those persons satisfying the requirements laid down in Rule 49 framed by the Provincial Government. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Govt. Appeal No. 1148 of 1950 (All) (A). That case does not apply to the present case as there the Inspector appointed was for the inspection of both wholesale and retail shops as well, and Rule 49 contemplates a set of qualifications about the possession of which by that particular Inspector, there was no evidence on the record. The appointment of Dr. Bhatt for the purposes of inspection of retail shops comes under the 3rd proviso to Rule 49, which has provided further that for the purposes of inspection of retail shops in any specified area any officer of the medical or pubjic health department who is a registered medical practitioner or a graduate in science may be appointed an ex officio Inspector. Dr. Bhatt is an officer of the public health department and is also a registered medical practitioner. His appointment as ex officio Inspector for the purposes of inspecting retail shops is justified by Rule 49.