ASHOK KUMAR VERMA 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 Brooke Bond India Ltd. along with five other accused, is sought to be quashed.

(2.) IT is held by the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1986(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 569 : 1986(4) Supreme Court 326, that : "A careful analysis of the language of Section 20(1) of the Act clearly shows that it inhibits institution of prosecutions for an offence under the Act except on fulfilment of one or the other of the two conditions. Either the prosecutions must be instituted by the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government or the prosecutions 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(1) do not envisage further delegation of powers by the person authorised, except that such prosecution may be instituted with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or the person authorised".

(3.) 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 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 a notification dated August 3, 1981 (Annexure P -4). 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 impugned complaint has, therefore, been filed against the petitioners by an incompetent person who had no authority to do so. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The impugned complaint (Annexure P -1) as well as the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Moga, are quashed. Petition allowed.