AMRIK SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, Amrik Singh, stands convicted under Section 16(l)(a)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, on the finding that he was selling adulterated milk. Besides urging for the acceptance of the defence plea that the Petitioner was not carrying it for sale Mr. S.S. Kang appearing for the Petitioner has raised three legal contentions:

(2.) ON reference to the record I find that in the course of the trial there was no challenge to the fact that the complaint was signed by Shri S. S. Jogi who had specifically in paragraph 5 of the complaint stated that he was authorized to file it nor was it ever disputed that he had the authority to institute the complaint. Had any such objection was raised the Courts could have gone into the matter and recorded the necessary evidence to determine their validity. Recently in Dhian Singh v. Municipal Board, Saharanpur and another(Cr. A. No. 122 of 1967) (Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 1967) decided on the 31st of July 1969 their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the objection to the authority of the person instituting the complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, observed as follows:

(3.) THE extract from the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dhian Singh v. The Municipal Board(C. A. No. 100 of 1966) reproduced in extenso fully meets two legal contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner. The concluding portion of these judgments clearly indicate that the authority to institute a complaint under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, need not refer to a particular case but may be a general authority conferring power to institute proceedings for certain offences or class of cases