KISHANLAL Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JABALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application of the accused Kishanlal under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings pending against him in the trial Court under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in the matter of adulteration of edible oil.

(2.) Shri C.P. Pathak, Food Inspector, employed with the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, had filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur, for prosecution of the applicant-accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the matter of adulteration of edible oil. The applicant-accused filed a preliminary objection in the said Court contending that Food Inspector Shri Pathak was not competent to file the complaint and, as such, the complaint was not maintainable in the Court of law. The premise on which the power of the Food Inspector Shri Pathak to institute the prosecution was challenged was that radical changes were effected in sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Act by section 16 of the Amendment Act No. 34 of 1976 which had come into force with effect from 20-3-1976. By virtue of this amendment Act No. 34/76, the power for institution of the prosecution had been taken away from the local authority viz. Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, in the instant case, and any person authorised in this behalf of the local authority viz. Food Inspector Shri Pathak of the Municipal Corporation in the present case. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant-accused that unless after this Amendment Act No. 34/76, fresh notification by the Central Government or the State Government is made authorising Food Inspectors to institute the prosecution, the Food Inspector in question viz. Shri Pathak, was not competent to institute the prosecution simply on the basis of any earlier notification in this regard.

(3.) I have considered the sole legal point pressed by the applicants learned counsel. The learned counsel does not challenge the fact that Shri Pathak is a Food Inspector, having the requisite qualifications under the provisions of the Act for holding that post. His only emphasis is on the point that without a fresh notification in favour of the Food Inspectors in general or in particular, by the State Government, the Food Inspector was no longer competent to institute the prosecution after the Amendment Act No. 34/76.