Shakti Chand vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

In this revision a legal question arises as to whether the complaint filed by the Food Inspector resulting in the prosecution of the petitioner was legally competent or not.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case it is not denied that the State Government has authorised the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, to institute prosecution against the persons committing offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The State Government has not authorised the Food Inspector to institute the prosecution. The Food Inspector has filed the impugned complaint on the basis of the authority delegated to him by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, vide notification dated 29th November, 1982.

It is held by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 1986 (in S.L.P. No. 701 of 1986), A.K. Roy & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 1986(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 569 : 1986 A.I.R. (SC) 2160, decided on 20th September, 1986 , that :

"A careful analysis of the language of Section 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 a 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 or 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 Section 20(1) of the Act does not contemplate the institution of prosecution by any person other than these designated. The terms of Section 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 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. Learned counsel appearing for the respondentState of Punjab has conceded to this proposition.

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