S. I. Jafri, J. - (1.) KANHAI Lal, son of Lallu Gupta, r/o Baheri, PS Baheri, District Bareilly has filed this revision against his conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below. He was convicted under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo one.years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and the aforesaid conviction and,sentence was upheld by Sri Sushil Kumar, VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal no. 133 of 1981 arising out of Criminal case no. 1113 of 1980, State v. KANHAI Lal decided by Shri Mohammad Farroq Umar, Judicial Magistrate (F) Bareilly. :
(2.) IN brief the prosecution case was that Sri Ranjit Singh, Food INspector along with Deputy Chief Medical 0fficer, Bareilly and other officials had conducted special raid on the shop of the applicant on 26-12-1978 and demanded the sample of Besan from him but the applicant refused to offer the sample and also closed the shop and went away, thereby, the applicant had prevented Ranjit Singh, Food INspector from taking the sample of Besan. After obtaining the sanction of the Chief Medical Officer,, Bareilly, a complaint was filed against the applicant. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence in the case and hearing the parties had found the applicant guilty of an offence punishable under section 7/16 of the aforesaid! Act and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. The conviction of the applicant was recorded on the basis of the statements of PW-1 Ranjit Singh, Food Inspector and PW-2 Dhyan Singh Pokhari. Ex. ka1 is a letter issued by the GvtO Bareilly authorising the Food Inspector, Ranjit Singh to take sample front the rural areas of the entire district of Bareilly. Ex. kha6 is the sanctioned order passed by the CMO Bareilly for the prosecution of the applicant. It was contended by Sri Manzarul Islam, the Id. counsel for the applicant that the Food Inspector Ranjit Singh PW-1 was not legally entitled to take the sample from the applicant's shop as he was not appointed as Food Inspector for the said area where the applicant's shop was situated. The prosecution has relied upon the notification no. 7315/XVI-X-722/55 dated November 22, 1973, in order to prove that Ranjit Singh, Food inspector was legally entitled to take the samples from the shop of the applicant. The aforesaid Notification is noted below ; "In exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act no. 37 of 1954) read with Section 21 of General Clauses Act 1897 (Act; 10 of 1897), the Governor is pleased to appoint, with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Gazette, all Chief Sanitary Inspectors and Sanitary Inspectors referred to in Notification No. 1207/XVI-II-722/55 dateJ 15th April 1968 as amended by Notification No. U. O. 329/XVI-X-722/55 (T. C.) dated 15th December 197l, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 as ' Food Inspectors ' in Uttar Pradesh for the whole of the District in which they are for the time being posted. "
(3.) NOTIFICATION no. 1207/XVI-II-722/55 dated 15-4-1968 reads as below : "In supersession of notification No. 10656 (iv) XVI-PH-722-1955 dated Feb. 9, 1956 as amended by no. 862/(ii)/XVI-722-1955 dated September 16, 1958, No. 2320/XVI-722-1955. dated June 27, 1960 and No. 4368/XVI-722-1955 dated Oct. 12, 1961 and in exercise of the powers under section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act XLIV of 1954), the Governor is pleased to appoint with effect from March 1, 1965, the following persons as Food Inspectors in Uttar Pradesh, for areas assigned to them as under : (a) For Rural areas including Town Areas and Notified Areas. (i) All District Medical Officers of Health,, Assistant Medical Officers of Health, Medical Officer-Incharge Anti-Epidemic Operations and Sanitary Inspectors (whether in the service of the Govt. of U. P. or employed by any local body) in respect of the areas falling within their respective jurisdictions. (ii) Sanitary Inspector employed by Sri Badri Nath and Sri Kedarnath Temples Committee (in case he is possessed of qualification prescribed under role 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in respect of the Area falling within his jurisdiction. (b) For Nagar Mahapalika and Nagar Palikas. All Municipal Medical Officers of Health, Additional Municipal Medical Officers of Health, Assistant Medical Officers of Health, Medical Officers Incharge Anti Epidemic Operation, Chief Sanitary Inspectors and Sanitary Inspectors as well as above officers of the Nagar Mahapalika in respect of the areas falling in their respective jurisdictions. (c) For Cantonment Areas: All Senior Executive Medical Officers, Officer Commanding Military Hospitals, Medical Officers and Sanitary Inspector in respect of the above areas falling in their respective jurisdiction. In a Cantonment in which no such officer is available to exercise these powers, the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board shall be the Food Inspector only within the limits of the Cantonment in which he is employed." It is absolutely clear from the above mentioned notification that it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove that Ranjit Singh, Food Inspector a qualified Sanitary Inspector and had possessed the minimum qualification of Food Inspectors as provided under rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Food Adulteration Act. Sub-rule III of rule 8 reads as under :- "A person shall not be qualified for appointment as Food Inspector unless he is a qualified Sanitary Inspector having an experience as such for a minimum period of one year and has received at least 3 months training in Food Inspector and sampling work in any of the laboratory referred to in clause (I) of rule 6." ;