PRITPAL SINGH, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a complaint filed by the Food Inspector under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the petitioner Tilak Raj is sought to be quashed.
(2.) IT is held by the Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No. 400 of 1986 (in SLP No. 701 of 1986), A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 569; decided on September 29, 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 of authorities or persons. If either of these 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 a prosecution by any person other than these designated. The term 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 the Central Government or the State Government or the person authorised." 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 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 a notification dated November 13, 1985 (Annexure P.3). In view of the Supreme Court dictim the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, was not competent to further delegate his powers to the Food Inspector. The impugned complaint has, therefore, been filed against the petitioner by an incompetent person who had no authority to do so. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Punjab has very fairly conceded this proposition.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , this petition is allowed. The impugned complaint as well as the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, are quashed. Petition allowed.;