SHAKTI CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision a legal question arises as to whether the complaint filed by the Food Inspector resulting in the prosecution of the petitioner was legally competent or not.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case it is not denied that the State Government has authorised the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, to institute prosecution against the persons committing offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The State Government has not authorised the Food Inspector to institute the prosecution. The Food Inspector has filed the impugned complaint on the basis of the authority delegated to him by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, vide notification dated 29th November, 1982.

(3.) IN view of the Supreme court dictum the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, was not competent to further delegate his powers to the Food Inspector. The prosecution of the petitioner was based on a complaint filed by the food Inspector, who was authorised by the Director to file the same. The impugned complaint has, therefore, been filed against the petitioner by an incompetent person who had no authority to do so. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Punjab has conceded to this proposition.