RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a complaint (Annexure P. 1) filed by the Food Inspector under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the petitioner Raj Kumar is sought to be quashed.

(2.) It is held by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 1986 (in S.L.P. No. 701 of 1986) A. K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others1, decided on September 29, 1986, that; A careful analysis of the language of section 20(1) of the Act clearly shows that it inhibits institution of prosecution for an offence... except on fulfillment of one or the other of the two conditions. Either the prosecution must be instituted by the Central Government or the State Government (or a person authorized in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government) or the prosecution should be instituted with the written consent of any of the four specified categories of authorities or persons. If either of these two conditions is satisfied, there would - be sufficient authority for the institution of such a prosecution for an offence under the Act. The provision contained in section 20(1) of the Act does not contemplate the institution of a prosecution by any person other than those designated. The terms of section 20

(3.) In the present case it is not denied that the State Government has authorized the Director, Health and Family Planning, Punjab, to institute, prosecution against the persons committing offence under the Act. The State Government has not authorized the Food inspector to institute the prosecutor. The Food Inspector has filed the impugned complaint on the basis of the authority delegated to him by the Director. Health and Family Planning, Punjab, vide a notification dated July 13, 1974 (Annexure P.3). In view of the Supreme Court dictum the Director, Health, and family Planning, Punjab 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. The learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-State of Punjab, has very fairly conceded this proposition.