NAGAR SWASTHA ADHIKARI, NAGAR MAHAPALIKA, AGRA Vs. PRABHU DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for certificate of fitness to file appeal in the Supreme Court, Under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against my order dated 28 -2 -1968 by which I allowed the petition in revision and set aside conviction and sentence of the Petitioner Under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Sri Parbhu Dayal having been convicted Under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and awarded a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment, came up to this Court and filed a petition in revision against the order of his conviction. Amongst other grounds, the petition in revision was sought to be supported by the plea that the Public Analyst and Food Inspector who took action in the case were not duly appointed as such under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Amendment Act (Act No. 49 of 1964) and that they did not have the authority to perform duties of their respective offices in respect of an occurrence which was alleged to have taken place after the Amending Act of 1964 had come into force. On enquiry made by me from the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, it was conceded that no notification relating to the appointment of the aforesaid officers was made after the Amending Act came into force. The question raised, therefore, had to be decided on the basis that the aforesaid officers who acted in this case were officers, who were appointed under the unamended Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and were not appointed as such after Act No. 49 of 1964 came into force. A careful perusal of the provisions of the two Acts disclosed that drastic changes in the panel of Central Committee for food standard Under Section 3 of Act No. 49 of 1964 had been made. It was also clear that the Central Government had to frame rules Under Section 23 of Act No. 49 of 1964 in consultation with the newly prescribed committee. No rules had been framed by the Central Government after the amending Act came into force. 4. A similar question had come up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Municipal Board Kanpur v. Behari Lal, 1960 AWR 229 FB. The question that was considered by the Full Bench was whether the Public Analyst appointed under the provisions of the UP Pure Food Act continued to hold the authority of that office after the enforcement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Full Bench held that even if it be the case that the appointment was saved by virtue of the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the only result that would follow would be that the officer would continue to be a Public Analyst under the Pure Food Act. He could not be deemed to be a Public Analyst within the meaning of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Full Bench had also disapproved a decision of this Court in the case of Municipal Board, Lucknow v. Shyam Behari, 1960 AWR 127.