A.S.NEHRA, J. - (1.) FOOD Inspector Nek Chand Goyal intercepted the petitioner on September 15, 1983, on Sangrur Patiala road, in the presence of -Dr. S.K. Goel, when he was in possession of 40 kilograms of cows' milk, in two drums, for sale and after disclosing his identity, the Food Inspector served notice Exhibit P.A. and purchased 660 mls. of milk from the petitioner for Rs. 1.50 paise vide receipt, Exhibit P.8. signed by the petitioner and divided the same into three equal parts and put into three dry and clean bottles alongwith 18 drops of formaline in each bottle as preservative and duly corked, labelled and wrapped them in thick papers along with signatory slips of the Medical Health Authority, Sangrur, pasted thereon the signatures of the petitioner and prepared the spot memo. Exhibit P.C. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh who reported vide his report, Exhibit PD that it contained the milk solids not fat to the extent of 8 per cent which was deficient by 6 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard, and on the basis of that report, a complaint, Exhibit P.E. was filed against the petitioner in the trial Court and he was summoned. The petitioner got another sample sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, for analysis, whose report also showed milk solids not fat to the extent of 8 percent and the petitioner was charge sheeted under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(2.) THE prosecution examined PW-l Shri Nek Chand Goel, Food Inspector, PW-2 Dr. S.K. Goel and PW-3 Siri Krishan, Clerk of L H.A. Sangrur, who supported the case of the prosecution. The trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16( 1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, rigorous imprisonment for three months on February 15, 1985. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on May 3, 1986. Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised an argument that the notification authorising Shri Nek Chand Goel, PW1, to prosecute the petitioner was ultra vires the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Act. In support of his argument, he has relied upon an authority of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. State of Punjab, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 569.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the papers thoroughly. The complaint Exhibit P.E. shows that Shri Nek Chand Goel was appointed as Food Inspector, vide notification No. EIV-1-Pb-73/1872, dated 9th March, 1973 under Section 9 of the Act. The said notification is reproduced as : "In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (No. 37 of 1954) read with rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 955 and the powers delegated,-vide Punjab Government Notification No. 5576-2-HBII-68/29659, dated 10th October, 1968, Sarvshri Nek Chand Goyal, Dhani Ram, Som Parkash Chopra, Balwant Singh and Sarbjit Sikand are hereby appointed as Food Inspectors for the notified areas of the district in which they have been posted. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (No. 31 of 954) read with Punjab Government Notification No. 5575-2 HBII-68/29659, 416 dated 10th October, 1968, they are authorised to institute prosecution against the persons committing offences under the said Act within the limits of their notified areas. Sd/- Director, Health and Family Planning, Punjab." ;