Ajaib Singh J:

This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor from the decision of the learned magistrate who had acquitted and discharged the respondent at the close of the prosecution case on a charge under s. 22(1) of the Price Control Act, 1946, for failing to affix labels or tags on certain goods offered for sale indicating the grades and prices thereof as required under the Price Control (Indication of Grade and Prices) Order, 1967.

The brief facts of this case are that an enforcement inspector from the Ministry of Trade, Commerce and Industry made a surprise check in a shop selling sundry goods on a wholesale as well as on a retail basis. Various goods were displayed for sale in the shop and it was discovered that some goods which were required to be affixed with marks or labels with an indication of their grades and prices under the Price Control (Indication of Grade and Prices) Order, 1967, made by the Price Controller in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him under s. 13(1)(d) of the Price Control Act, 1946, and gazetted as PU 271 of 1967 as amended by PU(A) 512 of 1969 and PU(A) 282 of 1972, were not so marked or labelled. The offending goods consisted of soap, eggmee, tea, baby gripe water, coconut oil, agar-agar and ten brushes. Except for the brushes these goods were all contained in boxes, packets, tins and bottles. The enforcement inspector seized the goods and lodged a report.

Subsequently, proceedings were instituted against the respondent who was the retailer of those goods for an offence under s. 22(1) of the Price Control Act for not complying with the order made by the Price Controller.

At the end of the case for the prosecution in the lower Court Mr. SK Lingam, learned Counsel for the defence, made a submission of no case to answer. He said that the enforcement inspector had no authority to enter the shop and seize the goods under s. 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Price Control Act and the seizure of the goods was, therefore, illegal. The learned magistrate agreed and he held that the respondent had no case to answer on the ground that the entry, inspection and seizure of the goods by the enforcement inspector was illegal as s. 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Act which empowers price control officers and police officers not below the rank of sub-inspector to enter the premises and seize the offending goods had not been complied with. The enforcement inspector in this case was not one of the officers stated in s. 14(1) and there was no evidence that he had any authority in writing as provided for in the sub-section empowering him to enter his shop and seize the goods. The learned magistrate acquitted and discharged the respondent and it is against this order of acquittal that the Public Prosecutor has now appealed.

During the hearing of the appeal before me Mr. SK Lingam for the respondent raised a new point which he had not taken up in the lower court. I think it will be convenient to deal with this point first. Mr. Lingam submitted that the charge as it stood was bad and not known to the law and he cited the case of C Mohammad V. Public Prosecutor in support. In that case the appellant was convicted under s. 22(1) of the Price Control Act for failing to affix labels or tags indicating the grades and prices to textiles offered for sale. On appeal Syed Agil Barakbah J observed that para. 2(1) of the Price Control (Indication of Grade and Prices) Order, 1967 (PU 271 of 1967) made pursuant to the provisions of s. 13(1)(d) of the Price Control Act did not require labels or tags to be affixed to the goods or classes of goods but only to bags or containers of articles which were offered for sale. There was no order under s. 13(1)(d) of the Act requiring retailers to affix tags or labels to any goods or classes of goods and the learned Judge was of the view that failure to affix any labels or tags on any goods or classes of goods which were displayed in the retailer's premises to which the public had access wa