Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.

Kartar Singh has through this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (for Short'' the Code'') prayed for quashing the complaint and criminal proceedings pending against him in the court of Shri D.S. Chatha, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Ludhiana, under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Dr. Sukhdev Singh Mangat, Food Inspector, filed a complaint on Ist February, 1982, against the petitioner alleging that he lifted a sample of cow milk for analysis from the petitioner on 24th October, 1981, the Food Inspector took 660 ml of cow milk. He sent one sample for analysis to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh through registered post. After receiving the report of the public Analyst through the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana, who is the local Health Authority, Ludhiana the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioner in the court of Shri D.S. Chatha, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, because the sample of milk was found adulterated.

It has been contended in this petition that the complaint filed against the petitioner was not competent in law because :

(i) Dr. Sukhdev Singh was not authorised to institute a complaint against the petitioner; and

(ii) There was a slight variation in the milk solids not fat.

Both these contentions deserve rejection, though they merit deep consideration.

Mr. Sawhney, the learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the complaint filed by the Food Inspector has contended that the source of authority for filing the complaint is the directions issued by the local Health Authorities (civil surgeon), Ludhiana, on receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, Punjab. This contention is apparently based on a misconception of facts. It is not in dispute and in fact could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Dr. Sukhdev Singh had been appointed a Food Inspector vide Notification No. Drugs (4) Pb 79/7653, dated 26th April, 1979. Thereafter another notification was issued on 14th March, 1980, by the Health and Family Welfare Department. A copy of the same has been placed on the file by Shri R.S. Palta, the learned counsel appearing for the State. It reads as under :

"No FoodPb. 80/744.In exercise of the powers conferred by section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act Nos. 37 of 1954 and 49 of 1964) read with Punjab Government notification No. 55762HBI68/29659, dated 10th October 1968. The "Medical Officers" who have already been declared as "Food Inspectors, from time to time are hereby authorised to institute prosecution (s) against the person (s) committing offence (s) under the said Act, within the limit of their jurisdiction as Food Inspector."

By this notification Dr. Sukhdev Singh, who was already a Food Inspector had been authorised to institute prosecutions. This notification clearly authorised Dr. Sukhdev Singh to file the present complaint.

Mr. Sawhney then contended that according to the report of the Public Analyst the sample containing 5.7 percent fats against 4.1 per cent of these fats required by law. The fats were in excess of the prescribed minimum. However, milk solids not fat were 8.2 per cent as against 8.5 per cent prescribed by law. According to the learned counsel there was a deficiency of only 3 per cent in the solids not fat. This was really negligible and no conviction could be recorded of the petitioner on the basis of this report. A recent decision of Full Bench of this Court in The State of Punjab v. Teja Singh, 1976 P.L.R. 433, had an occasion to consider this argument. It was held therein :

"that negligible or marginal deviation from the prescribed standard laid down by the Act cannot be ignored and acquittal recorded on that basis."

A catena of Single Bench and Division Bench authorities of this Court, which had taken a contrary, had been overruled.

No other point was raised.

There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.