JUDGMENT

SEN, J. :— This appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated February 12, 1986 raises a question of some importance. The question is whether the Food Inspector, Faridkot was competent to lodge a complaint against the appellants under S. 20(1) of the Act for commission of an offence punishable under S. 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) by virtue of the delegation of powers by the Food (Health) Authority, Punjab under notification dated September 7, 1972 purported to have been issued by him under R. 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules, 1958.

2. Put very shortly, the essential facts are these. Appellant No. 2, Messrs Food Specialities Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various well-known articles of food including New Maggi 2 minute noodles with sweet sour taste-maker while appellant No. 1 A. K. Roy is the Manager, Quality Control of the Company. On December 14, 1984 at about 3.30 p.m. the Food Inspector, Faridkot purchased a sample of New Maggi Noodles from the shop of a general merchant for purposes of analysis. The Public Analyst by his report dated January 17. 1985 opined that the said article of food contains carmosine and sunset yellow acid coal tar dye instead of caramel as described on the label and was therefore both adulterated as well as misbranded. He further opined that the label of the article of food did not comply with the requirements of Rr. 24 and 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 1955 regarding the addition of extraneous colouring matter. On February 1, 1985 the Food Inspector, Faridkot filed a complaint against the general merchant as well as the appellants for having committed an offence punishable under S. 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act for alleged violation of Rr. 24, 28, 29 and 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 by virtue of the delegation of powers by the Food (Health) Authority under, notification dated October 10, 1968 purported to have been issued by him under R. 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules, 1958.

3. During the course of the proceedings, the appellants raised an objection inter alia that R. 3 of the Rules framed by the State Government in purported exercise of powers under S. 24(2) read with S. 20(1) of the Act, was ultra vires the State Government and alternatively by virtue of the authority derived under R. 3 of the said Rules, the Food (Health) Authority alone had the power to initiate prosecutions for an offence under the Act and therefore he could not legally by the impugned notification sub-delegate his powers to launch the prosecutions to the Food Inspector. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate by his order dated December 4, 1985 rejected the preliminary objection raised as to the power of the Food Inspector to launch the prosecution under S. 20(1) read with S. 9 of the Act, on the ground that the State Government having delegated its powers to the Food (Health) Authority by framing R. 3 under S. 24(2)(e) of the Act, the Food (Health) Authority was competent to issue the impugned notification and therefore the complaint was validly lodged. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate further proceeded to frame charges against the appellants for having committed an offence punishable under S. 16(1)(a)(ii) of the. Act. Thereafter, the appellants moved the High Court by a petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the impugned order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and the consequent framing of the charge by him. The High Court did not go into the question and dismissed the petition in limine.

4. It is argued on behalf Of the appellants that as a matter of construction the first part of S. 20(1) of the Act makes it clear that a pro