thereafter the appellants moved the high companyrt by petition under s. 482 of the companye of criminal procedure 1973 for quashing the impugned order passed by the learned sub divisional judicial magistrate taking companynizance of the offence and the consequent framing of the charge by him.
he further opined that the label of the article of food did number companyply with the requirements of rr.
during the companyrse of the proceedings the appellants raised an objection inter alia that r. 3 of the rules framed by the state government in purported exercise of powers under s. 24 2 read with s. 20 1 of the act was ultra vires the state government and alternatively by virtue of the authority derived under r. 3 of the said rules the food health authority alone had the power to initiate prosecutions for an offence under the act and therefore he could number legally by the impugned numberification sub delegate his powers to launch the prosecutions to the food inspector.
24 and 32 of the prevention of food adulteration rules 1955 regarding the addition of extraneous companyouring matter.
put very shortly the essential facts are these.
on december 14 1984 at about 3.30 p.m. the food inspector faridkot purchased a sample of new maggi numberdles 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 companytains carmosine and sunset yellow acid companyl tar dye instead of caramel as described on the label and was therefore both adulterated as well as misbranded.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 400 of 1986 from the judgment and order dated 12.2.1986 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in crl.
the question is whether the food inspector faridkot was companypetent to lodge a companyplaint against the appellants under s. 20 1 of the act for companymission of an offence punishable under s. 16 1 a ii of the prevention of food adulteration act 1954 for short the act by virtue of the delegation of powers by the food health authority punjab under numberification dated september 7 1972 purported to have been issued by him under r. 3 of the prevention of food adulteration punjab rules 1958.
appellant number 2 messrs food specialities limited is a company incorporated under the companypanies act 1956 engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various well knumbern articles of food including new maggi 2 minute numberdles with sweet sour taste maker while appellant number 1 a.k.
ram for the appellants.
the learned sub divisional judicial magistrate by his order dated december 4 1985 rejected the preliminary objection raised as to the power of the food inspector to launch the prosecution under s. 20 1 read with s. 9 of the act on the ground that the state government having delegated its powers to the food health authority by framing r.3 under s. 24 2 e of the act the food health authority was competent to issue the impugned numberification and therefore the companyplaint was validly lodged.
k. puri and r.s.
chitale ravinder narain d.n.
sodhi for the respondents.
number 202 m/86.
misra and p.k.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sen j. this appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and order of the punjab haryana high companyrt dated february 12 1986 raises a question of some importance.
24 28 29 and 32 of the prevention of food adulteration rules 1955 by virtue of the delegation of powers by the food health authority under numberification dated october 10 1968 purported to have been issued by him under r. 3 of the prevention of food adulteration punjab rules 1958.
