9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various well-known articles of food including New Maggi 2 minute noodles with sweet sour taste-maker while appellant No. 1 A.K. Roy is the Manager, Quality Controller of the Company. On December 14, 1984 at about 3.30 p.m. the Food Inspector, Faridkot purchased a sample of New Maggi Noodles from the shop of a general merchant for purposes of analysis The Public Analyst by his report dated January 17, 1985 opined that the said article of food contains carmosine and sunset yellow acid coal tar dye instead of caramel as described on the label and was therefore both adulterated as well as misbranded. He further opined that the label of the article of food did not comply with the requirements of rr. 24 and 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 regarding the addition of extraneous colouring matter. On February 1, 1985 the Food Inspector, Faridkot filed a complaint against the general merchant as well as the appellants for having committed an offence punishable under s. 16(1) (a) (ii) of the Act for alleged violation of rr. 24, 28, 29 and 32 of the Prevention of Food Adu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the State Government, or (iv) with the written consent of a person so authorised. It is urged that the opening words of s. 20(1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act ... shall be instituted except by being of a negative character, the requirements of the section are imperative and that a discretionary power must, in general, by exercised by the authority to which it has been committed. Emphasis is placed on the words in this behalf in the - second part of s. 20(1) of the Act for the submission that the delegation of powers to launch a prosecution by the Central Government or the State Government, by general or special order, must be for a specific purpose in that behalf viz. to authorise the institution of prosecutions under the Act. It was accordingly submitted that r. 3 of the Punjab Rules enables the Food (Health) Authority to sub-delegate his power to authorise the launching of a prosecution for an offence under the Act to the Food Inspector, was ultra vires the State Government and could not be sustained on the terms of s. 24(2) (e) i.e. the general power of the State Government under s. 24(2) (e) of delegation of its powers and functions under the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as may be specified in the order of the Food (Health) Authority of the State of Punjab In accordance with r. 3, the State Government issued a notification dated October 10, 1968 purporting to delegate its powers and functions conferred by s. 20(1) of the Act viz. to initiate prosecutions for an offence under the Act, to the Food (Health) Authority, to the effect: In pursuance of the provisions of rule 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules, 1958, the President of India is pleased to delegate to the Food (Health) Authority its powers of appointment of Food Inspectors - and to authorise institution of prosecution for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In terms of the aforesaid notification, the Food (Health) Authority issued a notification dated September 7, 1972 authorising the Food Inspector, Faridkot to launch prosecution under s. 20(1) for an offence under the Act, in these terms: No. IV-I-Pb-72/7518- 2(i) In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act No. 37 of 1954) read with Rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 and the powers delegated vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector, Faridkot was duly authorised to launch a prosecution. The Food Inspector had been conferred powers of the State Government under s. 20(l) of the Act viz. to initiate prosecutions for an offence under the Act, by the Food (Health) Authority i.e. the Director of Health Services. A mere perusal of the impugned notification dated September 7,1972 makes it manifest that it was the Director of Health Services and not the State Government who had authorised the Food Inspector to launch prosecutions for an offence under the Act. It is therefore clear that the Food Inspector is not a person who has been authorised by any general or special order issued by the Central Government or the State Government. There would be no problem if the State Government were to issue a notification under s. 20(l) of the Act conferring authority on the Food Inspector, Faridkot under s. 20(l) to launch prosecutions for an offence under the Act as is the practice in the other States. A careful analysis of the language of s. 20(l) of the Act clearly shows that it inhibits institution of prosecutions for an offence under the Act except on fulfillment of one or the other or the two conditions. Either the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Government or the State Government or by a person authorised in that behalf, by a general or special order issued by the Central Government or the State 3 Government. The use of the words in this behalf in s. 20(1) of the Act shows that the delegation of such power by the Central Government or the State Government by general or special order must be for a specific purpose, to authorise a designated person to institute such prosecutions on their behalf. The terms of s. 20( 1) of the Act do not postulate further delegation by the person so authorised; he can only give his consent in writing when he is satisfied that a prima facie case exists in the facts of a particular case and records his reasons for the launching of such prosecution in the public interest. In the case of statutory powers the important question is whether on a true construction of the Act, it is intended that a power conferred upon A may be exercised on A s authority by B. The maxim delegatus non potest delegare merely indicates that this is not normally allowable but the Legislature can always provide for sub-delegation of powers. The provision contained in ss. 24(2) (e) enables the State Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
