The power to authorize prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, cannot be sub-delegated by the State Government to the Director of Health Services, and the Director cannot, in turn, sub-delegate this power to the Food Inspector.

1. Food Inspector Nek Chand Goyal intercepted Ram Sarup, revision-petitioner on 20-7-1983 at 8-40 a.m., near Bus Stand, Dhuri. He found him to be in possession of 10 kg. of mixed milk, contained in a drum. Out of the same, a sample of 660 ml. was purchased for an amount of Rs. 1/80 paise. Documents Exs. PA, PB and PC were prepared at the spot. Sample was divided into 3 parts, pouring the parts in 3 separate dried and clean bottles. After doing the needful, one sample was sent to Public Analyst and the other two were deposited with the Local (Health) Authority. Report of the Public Analyst is Ex. PD, according to which, milk fat was 5.4% and milk solids not-fat were 7.4%. Thus, milk-solids not-fat were defficient by 13.0 per cent of the minimum prescribed standards. Ex. PF is the notice sent to the petitioner by registered acknowledgment due post. Ex. PF/1 is the acknowledgment due receipt, showing receipt of notice. Ex. PF/2 is the postal receipt for sending registered acknowledgment due letter. Ex. PG is the affidavit of Kidar Nath, Peon. According to the same, he took a sample given by Food Inspector Nek Chand Goyal, along with Form No. VII duly sealed and separate packets, in the evening time. Both these packets were handed over by him on 21-7-1983 in the office of the Public Analyst. Report Ex. PD by the Public Analyst clearly shows that this sample was received on 21-7-1983 from Food Inspector Nek Chand Goyal relating to mixed milk. The Food Inspector was accompanied by Dr. Mukesh Gupta. In support of prosecution case, Food Inspector Nek Chand Goyal himself stepped into the witness box as PW 1. According to him, persons who were called to witness the proceeding did not agree to sign. Rather, they refused to do so. Dr. Mukesh Gupta (PW 2) supported the version of Food Inspector Nek Chand Goyal. Sri Kishan (PW 3) is a clerk from the Local (Health) Authority, Sangrur who has proved that the said Food Inspector had deposited two packets of the sample in his office. It is further proved by him that Ex. PD was received regarding the analysis of the sample on 23-8-1983 and was handed over to Food Inspector Nek Chand Goyal. On 2-9-1983, prosecution was launched and information was sent to the petitioner vide letter Ex. PF. The defence of the petitioner was that he came to supply milk in the milk centre and Food Inspector got his signatures on the representation that the petitioner was to appear as a witness. He examined, in his defence, Ram Dial (DW 1) and Bakhshish Singh (DW 2) who have supported the version of the petitioner, but their statements do not fix the date and time when the petitioner is said to have come to the milk centre.

2. After going through the file, the trial Court convicted the petitioner under S.7 read with Sec.16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act in short) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 . In default thereof, he was directed to suffer further RI for 3 months. The petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence before the Court of Session, but his challenge was declined. The defence of the petitioner was rightly disbelieved.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an argument that the notification authorising Shri Nek Chand Goyal to prosecute the petitioner was ultra vires the provisions of Sec.20(1) of the Act and he urges that he is supported by an authority of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy V/s. State of Punjab, (1986) 4 SCC 326 : (1986 Cri LJ 2037).

4. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the papers thoroughly. The complaint Ex. PE shows that Shri Nek Chand Goyal was appointed as Food Inspector vide notification No. EIV-1-pb-73/1872 dated 9-3-1973 under S.9 of the Act. The said notification is reproduced as :

"In exercise of the powers conferred by S.9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (No. 37 of 1954) read with R.8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1