SARDARI LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Food Inspector prosecuting the petitioner before the trial Magistrate derived authority for the purpose from the Punjab Government Notification No. Drugs-2-Pb.-75/7121 dated 26th March, 1975 published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 16th July, 1976. The source of this authority is the Director, Health and Family Planning, Punjab. The only question canvassed in this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, is whether the complaint at the instance of the Food Inspector is competent.

(2.) UNDENIABLY , Dr. Dewan Chand prosecuting the petitioner as Food Inspector was appointed as such under the aforesaid notification but was authorised to institute prosecutions against person committing offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Director, Health and Family Planning, Punjab. The Supreme Court, however, in A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1986(2) Recent CR 569 Crl. Appeal No. 400 of 1986, decided on 29th September, 1986, has ruled that the prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act must be launched by four specified categories of authorities or persons. And those are the Central Government; a duly authorised person by the Central Government; the State Government and the duly authorised person by the State Government. It has further been held on the interpretation of section 20(1) of the said Act that the institution of a prosecution by any person other than those designated is not permissible, except in those cases where prosecution may be instituted with the specific written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or the person authorised. In other words, a delegate of the person authorised by either of the two Governments does not derive power for the purpose under Section 20 of the said Act. While applying A.K. Roy's case (supra), Pritpal Singh, J. has in Crl. M. No. 856-M of 1986 (Ajai Pal v. The State of Punjab, 1987(1) Recent Cr 1), decided on 29th October, 1986, quashed a prosecution, the authority of which was sought to be derived by the Food Inspector from an identical notification. In the instant case also, the notification authorising the Food Inspector to institute prosecutions is analogous to the one quoted in A.K. Roy's case (supra).