D.D. Seth, J. - (1.) THE facts of this case are that one Gajraj was prosecuted for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Applicant Bharosi Lal stood surety for producing the accused before the Magistrate. The surety bond was executed by the Applicant before the Food Inspector, Agra. Girraj accused, however, absconded. The learned Magistrate issued notice to the Applicant to show cause as to why the entire amount of the penalty be not realised from him. The Applicant failed to show cause and hence, on 20 -10 -1967, the learned Magistrate ordered the entire amount of Rs. 1,000/ - as penalty to be realised from the Applicant. Against the order of the learned Magistrate the Applicant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Agra. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the courts below the Applicant has come up in revision to this Court.
(2.) I have heard Sri G.C. Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Sri K.S. Sinha, the learned brief holder, for the State. The learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the bond in the instant case was not executed under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence the orders passed by the courts below have to be set aside. There is no force in this contention. Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act deals with powers of Food Inspectors and the second proviso to Sub -section (5) of Section 10 is relevant in this connection and reads as follows: Provided further that the food inspector shall in exercising the powers of entry upon and inspection of any place under this section, follow, as far as may be, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898) relating to the search or inspection of place by a police officer executing a search warrant issued under the Code. Sub -section (8) of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act reads thus: any food inspector may exercise the powers of a police officer Under Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (Act V of 1898; for the purpose of ascertaining the true name and residence of the person from whom a sample is taken or an article of food is seized. Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the refusal to give name and residence by the accused and reads as follows: (1) When, any person who in the presence of a police officer has committed or has been accused of committing a non cognizable offence refuses, on demand of such officer, to give his name or residence or gives a name or residence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, he may be arrested by such officer in order that his name or residence may be ascertained. (2) When the true name and residence of such person have been ascertained, he shall be released on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, to appear before a Magistrate if so required.... It follows, therefore, that the Food Inspector exercising the powers of a police officer could release the accused, Girraj, on the execution of a surety bond by the Applicant under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the production of the accused before the learned Magistrate and when the Applicant failed to produce the accused before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate rightly ordered the forfeiture of the bond Under Sub -section (1) of Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Applicant placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Bhartia v. The State of Assam : AIR 1952 SC 405, in which it was held as follows: Under Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure, action can be taken only when the bond is taken by the court under the provisions of the code such as Section 91 for appearance, the several security sections or those relating to bail. Where the security bond is taken from the accused not by the Court but by a particular official such as a procurement Inspector for production of the property before the Court, no action can be taken Under Section 514 for forfeiture of the bond.;