W. Broome, J. - (1.) YADRAM , the Petitioner in this habeas corpus application (presented Under Section 491 Code of Criminal Procedure), has been convicted by a Magistrate of Agra Under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated milk in the city of Agra on 23 -8 -1965 and has been sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine, of Rs. 1,100/ - . He challenged that conviction by filing an appeal and a revision, but both were dismissed; and he is now in jail, serving out his sentence. His contention is that his detention is illegal because of certain flaws in the rules that were framed and the appointments that have been made under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) MR . Tej Pal, who has argued the case for the Petitioner before us, has confined himself to the following three grounds: (1) That the rules framed by the Central Government Under Section 23 of Act 37 of 1954 were not laid before both Houses of Parliament, as required by Clause (2) of that section and are consequently invalid and unenforceable. (2) That after the amendment of Act 37 of 1954 by Act 49 of 1964 it was incumbent on the Government to frame the rules afresh in consultation with the newly constituted Central Committee; but this was not done and consequently the rules framed under the Act before its amendment can no longer be enforced. (3) That the Food Inspector who took the sample of milk from the Petitioner's shop on 23 -8 -1965 and the Public Analyst whose report dated 6 -10 -1965 has been read in evidence against the Petitioner were not validly appointed and could not legally discharge any functions under the Act. As regards the first point, we find no material on the record before us to suggest that the requirements of Clause (2) of Section 23 of the Act were not complied with. The normal presumption would be that the rules were duly laid before both Houses of Parliament, as required by law: and the learned Government Advocate assures us that in actual fact they were so laid before the Lok Sabha on 22 -2 -1956 and before the Rajya Sabha on 23 -2 -1956. The first contention therefore is without force.
(3.) COMING to the second point, we find that Section 3 of Act 37 of 1954, as it originally stood, provided for the setting up of a Central Committee for Food Standards consisting of the Director General of Health Services, the Director of the Central Food Laboratory and various nominees of the Central Government, State Governments and the Indian Council of Medical Research; and Under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, relating to the framing of rules by the Central Government and the State Government respectively, this Central Committee had to be consulted whenever rules were made. The Amending Act No. 49 of 1964 introduced certain minor changes in the personnel of the Committee, providing for the addition of a representative nominated by the Indian Standards Institution and for some changes in the nominees of the Central Government. But we can find nothing in the Act, as amended, that would invalidate the rules already made in consultation with the original Committee or would require such rules to be resubmitted to the newly constituted Committee, to be approved and passed again. The Rules promulgated by the Central Government on 12 -9 -1955, after due consultation with the Central Committee for Food Standards as then constituted, remained perfectly valid and in full force after the Amending Act was passed in 1964; and it is obvious that consultation with the new Committee (constituted under the amended Section 3) would be necessary only in the case of fresh rules that the Government might wish to frame subsequent to the amendment of the Act.;