LAWS(P&H)-1989-5-114

KIRPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On May 22, 1989
KIRPAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted by Shri H.P. Handa, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, under section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for three months vide his order dated July 13, 1984. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by Shri S.S. Sohal, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide his order dated Feb. 5, 1986. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this revision.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner solely relies on A.K. Roy and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1986(3) FAC 66 to content that the complaint in the instant case was not instituted by a duly authorised person under the provisions of the Act. To fortify the contention he has placed reliance on a notification No. Food-1-Pb-79/69, dated July 20, 1979, whereby the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab appointed Dr. Gurinderjit Singh as one of the persons appointed as Food Inspectors. It is contended that a similar authorisation by the Director was held bad in law and the launching of the prosecution as illegal. Though this argument was not raised before the lower Courts, I think it goes to the root of the case. Since this point was again not take up in the grounds of revision in the present petition, the existence of the said notification was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the State, who states that the existence of the notification cannot be denied but what is the legal effect thereof is a matter to be decided by the Court. But as it is, this notification does bring the case of the petitioner within the four corners of A.K. Roy's case (supra). Consequently, this petition must succeed. The judgments of the Courts below are accordingly set aside and it is held that the prosecution against the petitioner was instituted by a person not competent under the law. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges. Revision allowed.