M. R. Sharma, J. - (1.) Dr. H C Aggarwal, P. W. 1 Food Inspector purchased a sample of milk from the respondent on Oct. 4, 1971. This sample was found to be sub standard. A complaint under Sec. 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as filed against the respondent on Nov. 10, 1971. It appears that he could not be served and proclamation under Sec. 83 of the Code Criminal Procedure was issued against him for April 9, 1975. On March 3, 1975, he made an application and appeared in Court. As a result of the trial held, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that Dr. H. C. Aggarwal, P. W. 1 should have been invested with the powers of a Food Inspector, after the reorganization of the State of Punjab because according to him the earlier authority conferred on the said Doctor had lapsed and that on account of the delay in summoning the respondent a valuable right which the respondent had about getting his own sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory had been lost to him. On these grounds he passed an order of acquittal in favour of the respondent. The State of Haryana has come up in appeal before us.
(2.) The first ground taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate docs not appear to be sound. Admittedly, the powers of Food Inspector had been conferred upon Dr. H. C. Aggarwal, P. W. 1 by the competent authority in the joint State of Punjab. Under these powers, the said Doctor was authorised to act as a Food Inspector in the district of Gurgaon. Merely because the State of Haryana came into being as a result of reorganization of the joint State of Punjab, it did not mean the Public functionaries who were receiving functions in a particular area had been divested of their jurisdiction under various statutes. Sec. 83 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 expressly lays down that every person who immediately before the appointed day was holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Punjab in any area which on the appointed day falls within any of the successor states shall continue to hold the same post or office in that successor State. The decision rendered by this learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the first point is therefore, reserved.
(3.) On the second point, however, the view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate appears to be unexceptionable in view of a single Bench decision of this Court in Resham Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, 1972 FAC 732. In that case, it was held that a sample of milk containing preservatives remains fit for analysis for a period of four months only. In that case the delay in getting the accused person summoned consisted of about six months as against the three and a half years taken in this case for that purpose. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere in this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;