Back
1999 Supreme(All) 1050
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BHAGWAN DIN
Nazar
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Revn. 753 of 1983
Decided On : 27 July 1999
Criminal Revn. 753 Of 1983
G.C.SAXENA,
A Food Inspector can only take samples of food within the local area for which he is appointed.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT - SECTION 9 - APPOINTMENT OF FOOD INSPECTOR - JURISDICTION - FOOD INSPECTOR APPOINTED FOR A SPECIFIC AREA CANNOT TAKE SAMPLE OUTSIDE THAT AREA - ORAL INSTRUCTIONS BY HEALTH OFFICER CANNOT CONFER JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, Nazar, was convicted under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated milk. He challenged the conviction on the ground that the Food Inspector who took the sample of milk was not authorized to do so as he was not appointed as a Food Inspector for the area where the sample was taken.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Food Inspector had no jurisdiction to take the sample of milk within the Municipal area of Kiratpur as he was not appointed as a Food Inspector for that area. The court also held that the oral instructions given by the Health Officer to the Food Inspector to act as a Food Inspector over the entire Corporation area were not valid as the Health Officer had no power to delegate such authority.
Issues: Whether the Food Inspector had jurisdiction to take the sample of milk within the Municipal area of Kiratpur.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that the Central Government or the State Government may appoint Food Inspectors for such local areas as may be assigned by them. The power to assign the local area of operation of a Food Inspector cannot be delegated to any other authority.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the revisionist, and ordered the refund of the fine deposited by him.
( 2 ) FOR appreciation of the submissions of Sri R. B. Sexena, holding brief of Sri G. C. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and of the learned A. G. A. and also to arrive at the correct decision, the relevant facts are given hereunder.
( 3 ) SRI Somendra Kumar was Sanitary Inspector at P. H. C. Kiratpur. By a notification issued under S. 9 of the Act, he was appointed Food Inspector for an area of P. H. C. Kiratpur. On 11-7-1980 at about 6. 30 a. m. he intercepted the revisionist, Nazar near Tanga Stand within the Municipal limit of Kiratpur. After disclosing his identity, he served a notice in Form 6 exhibiting his intention to take sample of the milk carried by him for sale. He took a sample of requisite quantity of milk, divided the same in 3 equal parts, kept in 3 clean and dry bottles and sealed on spot. He also prepared a memo of the proceeding of taking the sample from the revisionist, Nazar. Then he handed over one of the sealed bottles to the revisionist and deposited the other two sealed bottles in the office of C. M. O. Bijnor for further transmission to the Public Analyst for analysis and report. On receipt of the Analysts report, the C. M. O. authorised him to institute prosecution against the present revisionist.
( 4 ) THE Food Inspector instituted a complaint against the revisionist. In order to prove the guilt of the revisionist, he testified himself as P. W. 1. Before the trial Court among other points, it was contended that the area of operation by the Food Inspector, Somendra Kumar was limited within the P. H. C. Kiratpur. He took the sample within the Municipal area of Kiratpur beyond the area for which he was appointed as Food Inspector. Therefore, the entire proceeding of taking sample and prosecution stands vitiated. The trial Court observed that though Somendra Kumar was appointed as a Food Inspector for an area under P. H. C. Kiratpur, but the C. M. O. Bijnor has ordered him to look after the work of the Food adulteration under the Act within the Municipal Board area, Kiratpur in addition to his own usual duties till the trained Food Inspector is posted in Municipal Board, Kiratpur. Thus, he was authorised to take sample within the Municipal area of Kiratpur and there is no illegality or embarkment of jurisdictional area of the Food Inspector.
( 5 ) IN the appeal, the same argument was advanced before the appellate Court. The appellate Court also was of the view that since the work of Sri Somendra Kumar as Food Inspector within the Municipal area of Kiratpur has been authenticated by the C. M. O. Bijnor, there is no fallacy or illegality in taking the sample within the Municipal area of Kiratpur. The appellate Court on the above view, turned down the submission of the counsel for the appellant on this count.
( 6 ) IN the present revision, the same question of law has been raised on the force of the observation made by this Court in Ram Dulare v. State (1979) 1 FAC 269 : (1979 All LJ 220 ).
( 7 ) I have had the opportunity to go through the decision of the above case. In that case the Food Inspector had taken the sample of milk in an area for which he was not appointed as Food Inspector. He, therefore, stated before the Court that he had been orally instructed by the Nagar Swasthya
