BIRENLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution against the accused has been initiated on a complaint filed by one S.P. Chourasia, Food Inspector, Bargi Block, Jabalpur. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant was that no charge could be framed against the accused applicant as the present complainant, who filed the complaint, was not competent to file a complaint. He argued that the contravention of the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, under section 20 of the Act, is the person who is a validity appointed Food Inspector and has been specifically authorised by the authorities enumerated under section 20(1) of the Act for filling the complaint. He relied on Ex. P.1, which is Annexure C to the petition and contended that this is not an order of appointment of the said Food Inspector as a Food Inspector for the purposes of the Act. His argument was that first the District Family Planning-Cum-Health Officer, whose order is Ex. P. 1, was not competent to appoint the complainant as a Food Inspector in the instant case and also that this order is not an order of appointment of the complaint as a Food Inspector.