Gurdeep Singh vs State of Punjab

I.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has been convicted under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954, on a complaint filed by Dr. S.C. Sethi on September 1,1981. As per the complaint itself, Dr. Sethi initiated this prosecution in exercise of the powers or authorisation made in his favour vide Punjab Health Department Notification No. Food Pb. 80/744 dated March 14, 1980. A perusal of this notification which has been produced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner clearly indicates that the same had been issued by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, who concededly was the Head of the Department but not the State Government. This notification in turn refers to an earlier notification of the State Government dated October 10, 1968, whereby the Director had been delegated the powers of the State Government under section 20 of the Act. The submission of Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner now is that the Director himself being a delegatee of the State Government could not legally delegate his authority in favour of the complainant Dr. S.C. Sethi in the instant case and in the absence of any such authorisation or delegation of power to prosecute by the State Government in favour of Dr. Sethi, he could not legally and validly launch any prosecution against the petitioner. The learned counsel appears to be wholly right in the light of the observation made in this regard by their Lordship of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others. 1986 (2) R.C.R. 569; A.I.R. 1986 2100. As a matter of fact the learned counsel for the other side does not dispute the correctness of this submission. Accordingly I allow this petition and while setting aside, the conviction of, the petitioner, acquit him of the charge levelled against him.