NIYAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question on which this revision was admitted was whether the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Nainital was authorised to grant sanction for prosecution of the accused- applicant vide (Ex. ka 7) dated 23rd September, 1976. Considering the fact that this question was likely to arise in some more cases, I fixed an early date for disposal of the same and also summoned the record. THE sanction in question has been granted by Sri K. C. Bhatnagar, as the Zila Swasthya Adhikari Nainital (District Medical Officer of Health, Nainital). From the statement of Sri Shanti Prasad Gupta, the food inspector, dated 19th November, 77, it appears that the District Medical Officer of Health was designated as Deputy Chief Medical Officer Nainital.

(2.) COUNSEL for the applicant has argued that the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Nainital was not authorised to grant sanction for prosecution with respect to the offence in question which had been committed on the 18th July, 1978. He has relied upon a Notification published in the U. P. Gazette dated 13th November, 76 Part I, Ka, at page 3655, which is quoted as under:-

(3.) COUNSEL for the applicant has argued that in view of the statement of the Food Inspector Sri Bhatnagar was the Deputy Chief Medical Officer and he was not authorised to grant sanction. In this connection, it would be pertinent to note that the sanction in question was granted on 23rd September, 76 and the statement of the Food Inspector was recorded on 19th November, 77. Even assuming that Sri K. C. Bhatnagar was designated the Deputy Chief Medical Officer on the latter date it would not deprive Sri Bhatnagar of the existing powers already vested in him as the District Medical Officer of Health to grant sanction for prosecution. As I have said above, the Notification relied upon by the applicant's counsel does not in any manner divest Sri Bhatnagar of his power to act as Sanctioning Authority under Section 20 of the said Act. Subsequently it appears, due to change in designation, that Notification no. 2509/XVI-10-722-55 dated 1st May, 1977 had been published in the U. P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 1st May, 77. By this Notification, all Deputy Chief Medical Officers of Health in U. P. have been appointed as local authorities for all rural and urban areas in their respective jurisdictions. Prior to 1st May, '77 the District Medical Officers of Health continued to exercise their powers as such. The statement of Food Inspector was recorded on 19th November, '77 which means six months subsequent to the Notification of 1977, on that date Sri Saxena was acting as Deputy Chief Medical Officer. Prior to that date, he was acting as District Medical Officer of Health. Therefore, the statement of the Food Inspector, when interpreted in its proper perspective, does not at all deprive the District. Medical Officer of Health of his power to grant sanction on 3rd September, 76 when the only designation by which he could be described, and by which he was vested with powers, was that of District Medical Officer of Health. On that date he was not the Deputy Chief Medical Officer. Therefore, he was the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution.