STATE OF HARYANA Vs. M S BHARGAVA, ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Criminal Appeals 563, 564, 465, 567, 568 and 569 of 1970, preferred by the State of Haryana under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of the accused-respondents on a charge under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The acquittal in all these seven cases proceeds on the common ground that the Food Inspectors, who took the samples of the foods in question, and the Public Analyst who analysed them, had no power to discharge their functions under the Prevention to Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the 'the original Act'), because after the coming into force of the Amendment Act 49 of 1964 no fresh notifications were issued by the competent Government investing them with their respective powers under the amended Act. In arriving at conclusion, the learned Magistrate followed a Single Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported as Prabhu Dayal v. The State,1968 AllCriR 139. The question is whether that conclusion is correct.

(2.) It is apparent from the record that Shri H.R. Khanna, Food Inspector (in Criminal Appeal 563 to 567 of 1970) was appointed as such, vide Punjab Government Notification No. H.B. II-19(41)-62/34708, dated 21st August, 1962, and Shri Chuni Lal Grover, Food Inspector (in Criminal Appeal 568 and 569 of 1970) was appointed per Notification No. 14940-56-9-HBII-57-33630, dated 29th April, 1958. Further it is not disputed that the Public Analyst concerned (Shri Jagdish Kishore) was appointed as such by a notification under the original Act before the amendment of 1964. After the amendment, however, no fresh notifications of their appointment as the Food Inspector or Public Analyst, as the case may be, were issued either by the State Government or the Central Government.

(3.) It was contended before the learned Magistrate - as has been done before us by the learned counsel for the accused-respondents that Act 49 of 1964 had drastically amended the original Act, with the result that the Food Inspector and the Public Analyst appointed under the original Act had become functus officio and since no fresh notifications of their appointment under the amended to discharge their functions.