Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ut Of Chandigarh vs Jagdish Parshad on 6 March, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031662
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(101)
CRM-A-619-MA-2010 (O & M)
Reserved on : 03.03.2025
Pronounced on:06.03.2025
Union Territory of Chandigarh ... .Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Prashad ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Advocate with
Mr. Roopse Sharma, Advocate,
Ms. Kanta Lamdharia, Advocate, and
Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate,
for the appellant-U.T., Chandigarh.
Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate, and
Ms. Sikha, Advocate, for the respondent.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The present application under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. has
been filed for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal
dated 21.08.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh.
2. The instant complaint came to be instituted on 28.02.2001. The
accused came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 21.08.2008. The present
application for the grant of leave to appeal was filed on 24.05.2010. The
matter has come up for final hearing now after 25 years of the institution of
the complaint.
1 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031662
3. The brief facts of this case are that Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Food
Inspector on 22.12.2000 at about 7.00 a.m. intercepted a three wheeler
bearing No.PB-08-X-7164 of accused Jagdish Prashad and found in his
possession 20 sealed packs of Mrs. Bector's Cremica premium sandwich
bread. He associated Pachnarain s/o Ram Kishore r/o House 3004, Sector-
19/D, Chandigarh, as a witness to watch the proceedings initiated by him
while taking a sample of Mrs. Bector's Cremica premium sandwich bread
from the accused who also put his signatures on the documents prepared by
him at the spot as an attesting witness.
4. The Food Inspector purchased three sealed pack of 500 gms
each of Mrs. Bector's Cremica premium sandwich bread as sample from the
accused against cash payment of Rs. 30/- for the purpose of analysis and
examination and obtained a receipt thereof. The three packs of Mrs.
Bector's Cremica premium sandwich bread were labelled and each pack
was further put in plastic jar. The sample jars were properly labelled,
secured, fastened and then wrapped in strong and thick papers and the ends
of the wrapper were neatly folded and pasted with gum.
A paper slip bearing serial number, code number and
signatures of the Local Health Authority, Chandigarh was wrapped around
each sample jar from top to bottom and pasted with glue. The sample jars
were further secured by means of a strong thread and sealed with four
distinct seals. The signatures of the accused were obtained on each sample
jar in such a manner that the paper slip and the wrapper both carried a part
2 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031662
of the signatures. Thereafter, one sealed part of the sample was sent to the
Public Analyst for analysis along with the copy of the memorandum on
Form VII in a sealed packet. A copy of the memorandum and specimen
impression of the seal was sent to the Public Analyst in a sealed envelope
separately under intimation to the Local Health Authority. The sample was
taken in the presence of witness Shri Pachnarain. The remaining two sealed
samples of jars were handed over to the Local Health Authority for safe
custody.
5. As per the complainant, the report of the Public Analyst,
Punjab, Chandigarh was received through the Local Health Authority, U.T.,
admissible under Section 13 of the PFA Act which showed that the product
had not been labelled in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32 of PFA
Rules, 1955 as 'best before' has not been mentioned. Hence, the sample of
Mrs Bector's Cremica premium sandwich bread was found to be
misbranded. Since, the accused possessed misbranded Mrs. Bector's
Cremica premium sandwich bread for public sale in his three wheeler,
thereby he was found to have committed an offence under Section 7(ii) of
the PFA Act, 1954 read with Rule 32 (i) Rules, 1955 punishable under
Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the PFA Act, 1954.
6. On finding a prima-facie case, the accused was ordered to be
summoned to face trial.
7. Upon appearance, the accused was supplied with a copy of the
complaint. After hearing on the point of notice of accusation, a prima-facie
3 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031662
case under Section 7 (ii) of the PFA Act, 1954 read with Rule 32 (i) of the
Rules, 1955 punishable under Section 16 (1) ta) (i) of the PFA Act, 1954
was found to have been made out against the accused and he was
accordingly served with a notice of accusation to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
8. In order to prove its case, the complainant examined Shri
Sukhwinder Singh, Food Inspector as PW1, whereas PW-Panchnarain was
given up having won over by the accused and PW-Public Analyst was given
up as unnecessary and thereafter, the complainant closed the evidence.
9. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. in which the whole of the incriminating evidence was put to the
accused but he denied the same and claimed him to be innocent.
10. In defence evidence the accused tendered in evidence certified
copy of the judgment dated 08.03.2008 Ex. DA and closed the evidence.
11. Based on the evidence led, the respondent-accused came to be
acquitted vide judgment dated 21.08.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandigarh.
12. The aforementioned judgment is under challenge before this
Court.
13. The learned counsel for the applicant-State contends that the
Trial Court completely failed to appreciate that Sh. Sukhwinder Singh,
Food Inspector had taken sample of Mrs. Bector's Cremica premium
sandwich bread as per the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
4 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031662
Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The contents of sample were also
sent to the Public Analyst and as per the report, it was found that the
product had not been labeled in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32
of the PFA Rules as 'best before' had not been mentioned and the sample
was found to be mis-branded and therefore, the accused was liable to be
convicted under Sec 7 (ii) of the Act.
The Trial Court had erroneously relied upon the judgment of
the Addl. Sessions Judge in the case of U.T. Chandigarh Vs. Ravi Kumar
Kakkar. In that case the sample was taken by Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, Food
Inspector, whereas in the instant case, the sample had been taken by Sh.
Bharat Kanojia, Food Inspector. In fact Sh. Bharat Kanojia had already
taken 03 months' training from Food (Health) Authority, Chandigarh. Thus,
there was no question of any disqualification as he had already been
imparted 03 months' training by the Food Authority (Health), Chandigarh.
In fact, the complainant Food Inspector was duly authorized and qualified
to take the sample of the food. Section 9 of the Act provides for Food
Inspectors. Section 9 of the Act clearly provides that the Central
Government or the State Government may, by notification in the official
gazette, appoint such persons as it knows fit, having the prescribed
qualifications to be Food Inspectors for such local areas as may be assigned
to them by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may
be. Thus, once there was a notification in the official gazette, appointing a
particular person as a Food Inspector, the appointment becomes effective.
5 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031662
The provisions of Section 9 of the Act clearly provides that once there is a
notification by the State, expressing its satisfaction regarding its
qualification of Food Inspector, it is evidence of the fact that he was
qualified and was properly selected. Section 9 of the Act as such does not
provide for any qualifications and the Act empowers the State to prescribe
the qualifications for the appointment of certain persons as Food Inspectors.
There is no such finding that any such qualification was prescribed in the
statute itself and the Food Inspectors did not possess the same. The
qualifications prescribed in the Rules could be changed by the State at any
time. Further, there are always two types of qualifications, fundamental and
non-fundamental qualifications. In the instant case, there is no such finding
that the Food Inspectors did not possess the basic and fundamental
qualifications. Simply because of the fact that the training imparted to a
Food Inspector was for a shorter duration would not vitiate the entire trial
and an accused could not be acquitted on this sole ground.
The Trial Court completely mis-read the provisions of Section
12 and Section 20 of the Act. In fact, both the categories, have been
authorized to launch prosecution in the capacity of Food Inspector and
private consumer or registered consumer association, are different from
each other and no one can be a substitute for the other.
He, therefore, contends that leave to appeal be granted and
impugned judgment dated 21.08.2008 be set aside and the accused be
convicted for the offences for which he has been charge-sheeted.
6 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031662
14. The learned counsel for the accused-respondent contends that
the grounds raised in the application have been dealt with in the case of
'Ravi Kumar Kakkar versus State (Food Inspector), Crl. Appeal No.96 of
2003 decided on 08.03.2008'. No appeal/revision was filed against the said
order. Therefore, the present application seeking leave to appeal be
dismissed.
15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
16. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to refer to the
provisions of Sections 9, 12, 20 of the Protection of Food Adulteration Act,
1954 and Rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
"9. [ Food Inspectors.-(1) The Central Government or the
State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed
qualifications to be Food Inspectors for such local areas as
may be assigned to them by the Central Government or the
State Government, as the case may be:Provided that no person
who has any financial interest in the manufacture, import or
sale of any article of food shall be appointed to be a Food
Inspector under this section.(2)Every Food Inspector shall be
deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and shall be officially
subordinate to such authority as the Government appointing
him, may specify in this behalf.]
12. Purchaser may have food analysed .-Nothing contained in
this Act shall be held to prevent a purchaser of any article of
food other than a Food Inspector [or a recognised consumer
7 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031662
association, whether the purchaser is a member of that
association or not] [ Substituted by Act 34 of 1976, Section 9,
for certain words (w.e.f. 1-4-1976).] from having such article
analysed by the public analyst on payment of such fees as may
be prescribed and from receiving from the public analyst a
report of his analysis:
Provided that [such purchaser or recognised consumer
association shall inform the vendor at the time of purchase of
his or its intention] to have such article so analysed:
Provided further that the provisions of sub-section (1),
sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 11 shall, as far as
may be, apply to a [purchaser of article of food or recognised
consumer association who or which intends] to have such
articles so analysed, as they apply to a Food Inspector who
takes a sample of food for analysis:
Provided also that if the report of the public analyst
shows that the article of food is adulterated, the [purchaser or
recognised consumer association shall be entitled to get refund
of the fees paid by him or it] under this section.
[ Explanation.-For the purposes of this section and
section 20, "recognised consumer association" means a
voluntary consumer association registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for
the time being in force.]
20. Cognizance and trial of offences. -
1[(1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being
an offence under this Sec. 14 or Sec. 14-A] shall be instituted
except by, or with the written consent of, 2[the Central
Government or the State Government 3[***] or a person
authorized in this behalf by general or special order, by the
Central Government or the State Government 2 [***]:
Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may
be instituted by a purchaser [or recognized consumer
association] referred instituted to in Sec. 12 [if he or it
8 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031662
produces] in Court a copy of the report of the public analyst
along with the complaint.
[(2) No Court interior to that of Metropolitan Magistrate or
a, Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence
under this Act.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence, punishable
under sub-section (1AA) of Sec. 16 shall be cognizable and
non-bailable.]
Rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955:
Qualifications for Food Inspector.--
- A person shall not be qualified for appointment as Food
Inspector unless he-
(a)is a medical officer incharge of health
administration of a local area; or
(b)is a graduate in medicine and has received at least
one month's training in food inspection and sampling
work approved for the purpose by the Central
Government or a State Government; or
(c)is a graduate in Science with Chemistry as one of
the subjects or is a graduate in Agriculture or Public
Health or Pharmacy or in Veterinary Science or a
graduate in Food Technology or Dairy Technology or
is a diploma holder in Food Technology or Dairy
Technology from a University or Institution
established in India by law or has equivalent
qualifications recognised and notified by the Central
Government for the purpose and has received three
month's satisfactory training in food inspection and
sampling work under a Food (Health) Authority or in
an institution approved for the purpose by the Central
Government:
Provided that the training in food inspection and
sampling work obtained prior to the commencement of [rule 3
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Fourth Amendment)
Rules, 1976,] in any of the laboratories under the control of-
(i) a Public Analyst appointed under the Act; or
9 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031662
(ii) a fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry of
Great Britain (Branch E); or
(iii)any Director, Central Food Laboratory; or
the training obtained under a Food (Health) Authority,
prior to the commencement of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration (Amendment) Rules, 1980, shall be considered to
be equivalent for the purpose of the requisite training under
these rules:
[Provided further that a person who is a qualified
Sanitary Inspector having experience as such for a minimum
period of one year and has received at least three months
training in whole or in part in food inspection and sampling
work, may be eligible for appointment as Food Inspector, upto
the period ending on the 31st March, 1985 and may continue
as such if so appointed even though he does not fulfil the
qualifications laid down in clauses (a) to (c):]
Provided also that nothing in this rule shall be construed
to disqualify any person who is a Food Inspector on the
commencement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
(Amendment) Rules, 1980 from continuing as such after such
commencement.].
17. A reading of the above rules would make it apparent that in
case of fresh appointment of a food inspector, in addition to the
qualification provided under rule 8 (a), (b) and (c), it is further required that
he should be imparted three months satisfactory training in food inspection
and sampling work under a Food Health Authority or in an institution
approved for the purpose by the Central Government.
18. The question which arises is whether the Food Health
Authority, UT, Chandigarh was duly approved for this training. The relevant
10 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031662
notification of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in this regard
dated 29.05.1982 is reproduced as under:-
"G.S.R. 431 (E). In pursuance of rule 8 of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and in continuation of the
Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
(Department of Health) Order No.P. 15014/76-PF (F & N),
dated the 15th November, 1978 the Central Government
hereby approves the Food (Health) Authorities of all States and
Union Territories except the State of Manipur, Meghalaya,
Nagaland and the Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar
Haveli, Goa, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep and Mizoram for
providing training in food inspection and sampling work as
provided in the said rule".
19. Section 9 of the Act provides the procedure for appointment of
the Food inspector by way of a notification and this notification should be
after the compliance of rule 8 of the Act. Then comes section 20 of the Food
Act which provides how the prosecution for the commission of the offences
under the food Act is to be launched and it says that no prosecution under
the offence of food Act can be launched by a person unless he is authorised
in this behalf by general or special orders, by the Central Government or the
State Government. Thus, a notification authorising a food inspector to
launch prosecution, after sampling and analysis as per the provisions of
sections 10 to 13, can be done only by a qualified food inspector that too if
he is authorised to do so.
11 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031662
20. In the present case it is the case of the prosecution that as per
the notification 1997 the food inspector was authorised to launch
prosecution after being appointed as a food inspector. However, from the
notification of 1982 as mentioned above it stands established that the Food
Health Authority, Chandigarh was not approved and authorised to impart
training.
21. Further, the notification dated 8.10.1997 vide which the
complainant was conferred with the powers under section 20 of the PFA Act
by appointing him a Food Inspector and further authorising him and other
Food Inspectors to institute prosecution for the offences committed under
food Act was substituted with a new notification No.F-II-(6)-2003/6342
dated 30.09.2003 and after imparting fresh training to the complainant, food
inspector and other inspectors from a competent laboratory, duly authorised,
approved and fresh appointment and authorisation was notified for the
complainant food inspector and other inspectors. This endorses the fact that
the earlier notification was illegally issued .
22. No doubt as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
Section 20 read with Section 12 of the Act empowers a private purchaser to
launch prosecution for the commission of an offence under food Act.
However, at the same time it is the case of the complainant food inspector
that he had taken the sample of the article in question not in the capacity of
a purchaser but as a food inspector that too for the purpose of analysis after
complying with the procedure provided under section 11 of the Act and if it
12 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031662
is so he cannot be equated with a private purchaser. This question was
considered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Sher
Singh 1984(1) FAC 140 and it was held that where the complainant food
inspector had taken the sample in the capacity of food inspector and not as
ordinary purchaser the provisions of section 20 read with section 12 of the
Act cannot be pressed into service and if such a view is accepted the
provisions contained in section 20 of the Act that cognizance taken of an
offence under the Act would loose its meaning.
23. After examining the provisions of Section 20 and section 12 of
the Act, it is apparent that both the categories, which have been authorised
to launch prosecution in the capacity of food inspector and private
consumer or registered consumer association, are different from each other
and one cannot be a substitute for the other. As is mentioned in Section 12
an ordinary purchaser can purchase a food article from a shopkeeper but
while doing so he has not to inform or explain to him that he is purchasing
the same for the purpose of analysis. But Section 12 gives an authority to
him to get that article analysed by the public analyst on payment of a fee
and to get the report. The provisions of Section 12 further shows that if an
ordinary purchase intends to get an article for the purpose of analysis he or
she will have to comply with the provisions of Section 11 sub section (i),
(ii) and (iii) if he want to take action. However, under Section 11 a Food
Inspector purchases a food article only for the purpose of analysis that too
13 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031662
after complying with the provisions of section 11 sub section (i), (ii) and
(iii).
24. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no reason to
interfere with the well reasoned judgment dated 21.08.2008 passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh whereby the accused-respondent,
namely, Jagdish Parshad has been acquitted. Therefore, the application for
seeking grant of leave to appeal stands dismissed and leave to appeal is
declined.
25. The pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
March 06, 2025
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
14 of 14
