NACHHATTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act') by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, on a complaint filed by Shri Nek Chand Goyal, Food Inspector, Sangrur. He was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner were maintained by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur and now he is in revision.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner solely bases his case on A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports (SC) 569 : AIR 1986 Supreme Court 2160 to contend that the complaint in the instant case was not instituted by a duly authorised person under the provisions of the Act. To buttress the argument, a photostat copy of an extract from the Punjab Government Gazette, December 7, 1973 has been placed on record whereby the Director, Health and Family Planning, Punjab, on March 9, 1973 appointed Shri Nek Chand Goyal as one of the persons appointed as Food Inspectors and further in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 20 of the Act read with Punjab Government Notification No. 5575-2HBII-68/29659, dated October 16, 1968, the Director authorised Nak Chand Goyal to institute prosecution against the persons committing offences under the Act within the limits of his notified area. It is contended that a similar authorisation by the Director was held bad in law and the launching of the prosecution illegal. Though this argument was not raised before the Courts below but as it appears to me, it goes to the root of the case. Since the matter was not taken up in the revision petition as well, the existence of the aforesaid notification was brought to the notice of the learned Counsel for the State. He took time to verify the contents thereof. Now he states that the existence of the notification cannot be denied, but what is the legal effect thereof, that is for the Court to see. But as it is, this notification does bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of A.K. Roy's case (supra). For the ratio discerned in that case, this petition must succeed. The judgments of the Courts below are set aside holding that the prosecution against the petitioner was instituted by a person not competent as known to law.