KARAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) reates to quashment of complaint (Annexure P1) filed by Rajesh Jindal, Food Inspector for commission of offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as amended by Act No. 34 of 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition as emerge from the complaint, Annexure P1, are that Rajesh Jindal acting as Government Food Inspector: inspected the premises of the present petitioner at Ropar, on 22-3-1983 at 11 A.M. At that time the petitioner had in his possession Lipton Rich Bru tea meant for sale. After disclosing his identity the Food Inspector purchased three packets of the tea each weighing 250 grams on payment of Rs. 37.50. Those samples were divided in three equal parts, and, transferred into three different packets which were separately labeled, stoppered, fastened and then wrapped in a strong thick paper. A paper slip signed by the Local Health Authority with stamp at both the ends was pasted around each of three packets, which, was further secured by means of strong twine and sealed with distinct seals at the spot. One such packet was sent to the Public Analyst Punjab, Chandigarh along with memorandum on form VII in a sealed cover and the remaining two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority. The report of the Public Analyst revealed that the sample contained one iron piece 7.00 mn. in length 608 parts per million by weight. Since the petitioner had contravened the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, he was found selling Lipton Rich Bru tea without a licence as required under rule 50 of the Act, complaint Annexure P1 was filed against him. It has also been pleaded that Rajesh Kumar Jindal has been appointed as Food Inspector and duly authorised to institute prosecution for an offence under the Act vide notification No. DRGS3 Pb. 75/7357 dt. 30th July, 1975 (Annexure R2).

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that Rajesh Kumar Jindal complainant has not been duly appointed as Food Inspector, nor, he has been duly authorised to institute proceedings for prosecution of offences under the Act. This aspect of the case was specially pleaded in the petition; wherein, it is pleaded that the Food Inspector who launched the complaint has no power under Section 20 of the Act to institute the prosecution as the Food Inspector has not been duly authorised to institute the prosecution by the State Government and he has filed the complaint on the basis of the authority delegated to him by the Director Health Services Punjab, vide, Gazette notification, Annexure P4.