SANTOKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by Santokh Singh, proprietor of Shivalik Hotel and Restaurant, Balachaur, Distt. Hoshiarpur seeking quashing of the complaint and the proceedings thereof pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Garhshanker, District Hoshiarpur under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that a complaint was filed against the petitioner and another. It had been alleged that on 14.7.1987 at 4.00 P.M. under the supervision of Dr. H.P. Bhatia, DHO Hoshiarpur, premises of Shivalik Hotel and Restaurant were inspected. Santokh Singh is the proprietor. His serviceman Sukhvinder Singh was present. There was 10 Kilogram of unindicated milk for sale for human consumption. The identity was disclosed by the Food Inspector. The customers who were present refused to be witnesses. Notice was served upon Sukhvinder Singh under form VI. He refused to receive it. The notice was pasted on the wall of the hotel. 750 Ml. milk was purchased for Rs. 4.50 p. The milk was put into 3 dry clean bottles in equal parts. 20 drops of 40% formalise were added in each bottle. The bottles were labeled and wrapped in thick paper. A paper silk under the signature of L.H.A. Hoshiarpur was pasted on the wrapper of each bottle. The bottles were then secured with a thread and sealed. One sealed parcel of the bottle was sent to the Public Analyst at Chandigarh. It was found to be adulterated. After obtaining the written consent under Section 20 of the Act, the complaint was filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied upon certain precedents from this Court to urge that there is no proper consent contemplated under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Reference was made to the decision of this Court in the case of Ajay Pal v. State of Punjab, 1987(1) RCR 1. In the said case it was noted that the State Government has not authorised the Food Inspector to institute the prosecution. He had filed the impugned complaint on the basis of the authority delegated to him by the Director, Health Services and Family Planning, Punjab. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1986(2) RCR 569 the learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the complaint and the proceedings. Same view prevailed in the case of Prem Nath v. State of Punjab, 1987(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 43. Therein also the Food Inspector had filed the complaint on basis of the authority delegated to him by the Director Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. The complaint and the subsequent proceedings were quashed. Similarly in the case of Tilak Raj v. State of Punjab, 1993(2) RCR 414 the subsequent proceedings and the complaint were quashed because the powers were noted to have been delegated by the Director, Health and Family Planning, Punjab to certain Food Inspectors.