DESH RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of the judgement dt. 6-7-87 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar whereby the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar dt. 6-12-85 has been confirmed by which the petitioner has been convicted under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food ,Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act in short) and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default to undergo 6 months S.I.

(2.) Shri Ramswaroop Sahgal, Food Inspector, District Ganganagar took a sample of turmeric from the shop of the petitioner according to the provisions of PFA Act and sent it for chemical examination which was found adulterated. A complaint was filed on 9-2-84 by Shri Ramswaroop and the Court took the cognizance and summoned the petitioner. The petitioner was tried for the charge under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act. He denied the charge and after trial petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel on behalf the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that Ramswaroop Sahgal vas not competent as Food Inspector to lodge the complaint on 9-2-84 in the Court because he was appointed Food Inspector only for one year for the local areas of Shriganganagar District by notification Ex. P-2 i.e. up to 17-1-84. Therefore he was not authorised to submit the compliant on 9-2-84. It is further argued that the Court could not take cognizance on a complaint filed by unauthorised person and therefore the trial is vitiated and the petitioner should be acquitted on this ground alone. It is next argued that the case was conducted by Assistant Public Prosecutor who was also not authorised for this. Therefore the whole proceedings conducted by the Court was absolutely without jurisdiction. Learned Public Prosecutor has repelled this argument that the sample was collected on 22-10-83 and on that day Shri Ramswaroop Sahgal was duly appointed Food Inspector and was fully competent to take the sample and also to file the complaint as he was duly authorised by the Local Health Authority, Shriganganagar by Ex. P-15. The learned trial Court has considered this contention and has observed that Food Inspector Shri Ramswaroop Sahgal was authorised to take sample and sample was found adulterated, the complaint was lodged by him on 9-2-84. It does not in any manner prejudice the case of the petitioner. Shri Ramswaroop Sahgal was authorised to file the complaint and therefore he was competent to file it in the Court.