Balbir Singh vs Union Territory, Chandigarh

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

On 7.11.1984 Food Inspector Balbir Singh inspected the premises of Balbir Singh petitioner and took a sample of cow''s milk measuring 660 mililitres. The sample was divided into three equal parts and was sealed in three dry and clean bottles as per rules. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh who reported that the sample was deficient in milk solids not fat by 9% of the minimum prescribed standard. Since the petitioner was keeping the milk for sale so a complaint was filed against him for his trial for an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in the Court of Additional Chief Justice Magistrate, Chandigarh. Vide order Annexure P2 petitioner was summoned to stand trial by issuance of bailable warrants. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the summoning order Annexure P.2.

The main contention of the petitioner was that the complaint was filed by a person who had no authority to do so. Food Inspector Balbir Singh was not authorised by any appropriate Government as envisaged under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As per assertion in the complaint itself (Annexure P.1) the complainant was authorised to file the complaint vide notification was not by an appropriate Government. Moreover, there could not be general delegation of powers to the Food Inspector and the power should have been given specifically for each individual case.

The contention of the petitioner is without any substance and this matter has already been decided in the case of Nirmal Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports 181 : 1991(2) ILR Punjab and Haryana 83. In this case the questions involved for decision were as under :

Whether the Food Inspector who had taken samples of adulterated food had not been validity appointed by the appropriate Government under Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)?

Whether the Inspectors, who instituted the prosecution in each case had not been duly authorised to initiate prosecution under Section 20(j) of the Act?

The notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration, Health Department on 921984 whereby Balbir Singh was appointed as Food Inspector was also assailed in this case and it was held :

"That at all relevant times the Administrator of Union Territory, Chandigarh, appointed by the President under Article 239 of the Constitution of India was called the Chief Commissioner and that the Administrator Union Territory Chandigarh is the Central Government. The Food Inspector who took the sample was appointed by the appropriate Government under Section 9(1) of the Act and that the prosecution was initiated by a person duly authorised to do so under section 20(1) of the Act."

The petition for quashing the complaint lodged by the Food Inspector was dismissed.

In view of the above mentioned authority in which the question regarding the validity of the appointment of Balbir Singh as Food Inspector was already decided this petition was not passed nor any other point was urged. I therefore, find that the petition is without any merit and dismiss the same. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial Court on 2531992.