Gurnam Singh, J. - (1.) CHARAN Dass petitioner was convicted under section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal filed by him failed He has now filed this revision petition against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that Shri Ajit Singh Dua. Medical Officer, Incharge Model Town Dispensary, Ludhiana, took six bottles of carbonated water sweetened "rose", as sample from the accused on 16th July, 197 3 and turned the same into three sealed packets each containing two bottles One packet was sent to the Public Analyst and the other was given to the accused and the third was retained in his office. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated. The learned counsel for the petitioner only contended that Dr. Ajit Singh Dua was appointed as Food Inspector vide Punjab Government Notification dated 25th January, 1974 and on the same day he was authorised to launch prosecution for an offence under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and that on 16th July, 1973 he was neither a Food Inspector nor was he authorised to launch the prosecution of the accused and as such the prosecution of the accused petitioner was legally incorrect.
(3.) SHRI Ajit Singh Dua, was examined as P.W. 1 and he in his statement dated 4th May, 1874, admitted that he got the training under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in December, 1973 and was appointed as Food Inspector vide Notification of the Punjab Government dated 25th January, 1974. He further stated that before that he did not know if he was a Food Inspector but be used to take samples under the orders of the Chief Medical Officer. Shri A.S. Dua may be taking the samples under the orders of the Chief Medical Officer but as he was not appointed as a Food Inspector on the day he had taken the sample from the accused, so he was not authorised to launch the prosecution of the accused under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Thus the prosecution launched by Shri Dua is not legally correct and further proceedings in the case are also not lawful. The result is that the conviction and sentence of the accused -petitioner are had in law. This revision petition is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner are set aside and his bail bond is cancelled.;