Applicant stood surely for one Achal Singh who was being prosecuted for an offences under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Achal Singh did not appear in spite of issue of processes. Applicant was then directed to produce the accused on 2-11-1968 or to show cause why the action should not be taken against him. Notice was served on the applicant on 27-10-1968 personally. He, however, failed to show cause although several dates were fixed for the purpose. The Magistrate therefore, forfeited his bond and directed for the realisation of Rs. 1000 as penalty for the forfeiture.

2. Applicant came up in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge but it was dismissed.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the bond executed before the Food-Inspector could not be forfeited by the court Reliance was placed on the case of Rameshwar Bhartia v. State of Assam (AIR 1952 SC 405).

4. Bhartia's case (AIR 1952 SC 405) is distinguishable on facts. That was a case in which bond was forfeited for not producing the property in the Court.

5. Under S. 10 cl. 8 "Any Food-Inspector may exercise the powers of a police officer under S. 57 of the Criminal P.C. 1898 for th