NANAK CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioner was prosecuted on a complaint filed by Shri Jagrup Singh, Food Inspector, Ferozepur, who when accompanied by Mr. V.K. Sharma, D.H.O. Ferozepur and Balbir Singh, Peon, of the office of the Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur had conducted a raid on the shop of the petitioner. The petitioner was running this shop under the name and style of Aishi Ram Nanak Chand Halwai Shop at village Arniwala. The petitioner was found present having in his possession about 20 kg. of unidentified milk for sale contained in a topic. After formalities of notice etc., 660 mls. of milk was purchased on payment of Rs. 2/ -. On analysis, the same was found to be adulterated. Hence the complaint was filed. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, and the period already undergone by the petitioner during investigation and trial was ordered to be adjusted against the period of sentence. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court which was entrusted to the Additional Sessions Judge, who after hearing the arguments dismissed the same.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Food Inspector was not competent to institute the prosecution as he was not authorised to do so by the State Government. He further argued that Rule 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules, 1958 empowers the State Government by an order in writing to delegate its powers to appoint Food Inspectors, to authorise a person to institute prosecution for an offence under the Act and such other powers exercisable by it under the Act as may be may be specified in the order to the Food (Health) Authority of the State of Punjab. The said Rule 3 as well as Sections 9 and Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 have been elaborately discussed by me in Criminal Revision No. 631 of 1986 Surinder Singh v. The State of Punjab, decided on 4th March, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 54 following Supreme Court's judgment in A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 569 (SC) : AIR 1986, wherein it has been held that -

(3.) IN this case the Food Inspector Shri Jagrup Singh was appointed as Food Inspector and authorised to institute prosecution for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide Notification Exhibit P.J. This notification has been issued by the Director, Health Services, Punjab, Chandigarh in pursuance of the delegation of powers to him vide Punjab Government Notification No. 5575 -2 HBII -68/29659, dated 13th October, 1968 which is the same as was referred in A.K. Rov's case (supra). According to the said Supreme Court's dictum, the Director was not competent to further delegate his powers to the Food Inspector. The impugned complaint has, therefore, been filed against the petitioner by an incompetent person who had no authority to do so. I, therefore, accept this revision and setting aside the orders of the Courts below acquit the petitioner of the charge. Revision accepted.