Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab .

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

On 28.9.1982. Y. R. Malhotra, Government Food Inspector seized the sample of food stuff under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short the Act) from the shop of Balwant Singh petitioner. The petitioner was found having in his possession at the shop 41 bottles of sweetened carbonated water fitted with glass ball without labels in two crates for sale to the public. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst Punjab, Chandigarh. On receipt of the report, the petitioner was prosecuted and convicted by Shri H. P Handa, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, remanded the case for a fresh decision. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this revision against the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala,

Apart from other grounds, the main ground taken by the petitioner, in this revision is that the Food Inspector was not legally competent to seize the sample as has been laid down in A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1986/1986(2) Recent CR 569, Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 1986 (in S.L.P. No. 701 of 1986) decided on 20th September. by the Supreme Court of India.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the Food Inspector was not competent, the whole proceedings are liable to be quashed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this point. In the present case, the Food Inspector was authorised by the Director, Health and Family Welfare. Punjab, to institute prosecution against a person committing offence under the Act. It is no body''s case that the State Government had authorised the Food Inspector to institute prosecution against the petitioner. In A. K. Roy''s case (supra), it was held that:

"A careful analysis of the language of S. 20(1) of the Act clearly shows that it inhibits institution of prosecution for an offence .. .. .. except, on fulfilment of one or the other of the two conditions. Either the prosecution must be instituted by the Central Government or the State Government (or person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government) or the prosecution should be instituted with the written consent of any of the four specified categories of authorities or persons. If either of 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 S. 20(1) of the Act does not contemplate the institution of a prosecution by any person other than these designated. The terms of S. 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."

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 prosecution of the petitioner was based on a complaint filed by the Food Inspector, who was authorised by the Director to file the same. The impugned complaint has, therefore, been filed against the petitioner by an incompetent person who had no authority to do so.

Consequently, this revision is allowed, the impugned complaint as well as the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof are set aside.