# Kundan Lal v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (1999) 3 ILRA 171
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kundan-lal-v-state-of-u-p-39380
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
171
revisionists . in that case while making the direction in favour of the
accused-person for release on bail, discharge or acquittal of the
accused in cases suffering from delay in trial, the Apex Court
expressly stated in Paragraph 4 that the directions shall not apply to
the Cases involving corruption, N.D.P.S. Act, Essential Commodities
Act, Food Adulteration Act and Acts dealing with environment or
any other economic of offence etc. In this authority it was said that
the criminal courts shall try the offence mentioned in para aforesaid
on priority basis. The present also is a case relating the economic
offence being under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and for
that reason it was all the more improper to quash the remand order
for retrial.

5.
Both the above revisions are consequently dismissed. The
remand order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun
is upheld. The stay orders dated 15.02.1985 and 19.02.1985 passed
by this court in Criminal Revisions Nos. 280 of 1985 and 306 of
1985 respectively are vacated. It is directed that the court to which
the case is entrusted for retrial, shall act with utmost expedition in
making the trial and deciding the case according to law.

6.
Let the record of the trial court which has been received in
Criminal Revision No. 280 of 1985 be returned to the C.J.M.
concerned along with a copy of this order forthwith by special
messenger/courier.

5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %+$*:$1 ',1 -
7+( +21·%/( %+$*:$1 ',1 -

&ULPLQDO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI
&ULPLQDO UHYLVLRQ DJDLQVW WKH RUGHU DQG MXGJPHQW GDWHG
SDVVHG E\ 6UL 60 *RHO ,9 $GGO 6HVVLRQV -XGJH %LMQRU LQ &ULPLQDO
$SSHDO 1R
1D]DU
«$SSOLFDQW
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQW
 6KUL *& 6D[HQD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV $*$
1999
------
July, 27
1999
------
Kundan Lal
 Vs.
State of U.P.
------
B.K. Sharma,J.
172 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999

6HFWLRQ RI &RGH RI &ULPLQDO 3URFHGXUH DQG VHFWLRQ RI WKH
SUHYHQWLRQ RI )RRG $GXOWUDWLRQ $FW 7KH ORFDO DUHD ZLWKLQ ZKLFK
)RRG ,QVSHFWRU LV DXWKRULVHG WR DFW PD\ EH DVVLJQHG E\ WKH &HQWUDO
*RYHUQPHQW
RU
VWDWH
JRYHUQPHQW
7KLV
SRZHU
KDV
QRW
EHHQ
GHOHJDWHG WR &02 VLQFH WKH IRRG LQVSHFWRU KDG QR MXULVGLFWLRQ WR
WDNH VDPSOH RI WKH 0LON ZLWKLQ WKH 0XQLFLSDO $UHD RI .LUDWSXU WKH
HQWLUH SURFHHGLQJV DQG WKH WULDO VWRRG YLWLDWHG +HOG3DUD
7KH ORFDO DUHD ZLWKLQ ZKLFK )RRG ,QVSHFWRU LV DXWKRULVHG WR DFW
PD\ EH DVVLJQHG E\ WKH &HQWUDO *RYHUQPHQW RU 6WDWH *RYHUQPHQW
7KH SRZHU RI WKH &HQWUDO *RYHUQPHQW RU VWDWH *RYHUQPHQW KDV QRW
EHHQ GHOHJDWHG WR WKH &02 %LMQRU WR FKDQJH WKH DUHD RU DVVLJQ
DGGLWLRQDO MXULVGLFWLRQ RI WKH DUHD WR D )RRG ,QVSHFWRU IRU ZKLFK KH
ZDV QRW DSSRLQWHG DV D )RRG ,QVSHFWRU

By the Court

(1)
On being convicted by the judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Bijnor under Section -7/16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration
Act ( hereinafter called 'Act') and sentenced to 6 month's R.I. and
to a fine of Rs. 1000/-, the present revisionist, Nazar preferred an
appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bijnor which was ultimately heard
and disposed of by IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijnor. The appellate
court dismissed the appeal by order dated 18.04.1983 confirming the
order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Hence, the
present revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the order
of conviction passed by the trial court and also the order made by the
appellate court dismissing the appeal.

(2)
For appreciation of the submissions of Sri R.B. Saxena,
holding brief of Sri G.C. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the
revisionist and of the learned AGA and also to arrive at the correct
decision, the relevant facts are given hereunder.

(3)
Sri Somendra Kumar was Sanitary Inspector At P.H.C.
Kiratpur. By a notification issued under Section-9 of the Act, he was
appointed Food Insepctor for an area of P.H.C. Kiratupr. On
11.07.1980 at about 6.30 A.M. he intercepted the revisionist, Nazar
near Tonga Stand within the municipal limit of Kiratpur. After
disclosing his identity, he served a notice in form-6 exhibiting his
intention to take sample of requisite quantity of milk, divided the
same in 3 equal parts, kept in 3 clean and dry bottles and sealed on
spot. He also prepared a memo of the proceeding of taking the
sample from the revisionist, Nazar. Then he handed over one of the
1999
------
Nazar
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& another
------
Bhagwan Din, J..
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
173
sealed bottles to the revisionist and deposited the other two sealed
bottles in the office of C.M.O. Bijnor for further transmission to the
Public Analyst for analysis and report. On receipt of the Analyst's
report, the C.M.O. authorised him to institute prosecution against the
present revisionist.

(4)
The Food Inspector instituted a complaint against the
revisionist. In order to prove the guilt of the revisionist, he testified
himself as P.W. 1. Before the trial court among other points, it was
contended that the area of operation by the Food Inspector,
Somendra Kumar was limited within the P.H.C. Kiratpur. He took
the sample within the municipal area of Kiratpur beyong the area for
which he was appointed as Food Inspector. Therefore, the entire
proceeding of taking sample and prosecution stands vitiated. The
trial court observed that though Somendra Kumar was appointed as
a Food Inspector for an area under P.H.C. Kiratpur, but the C.M.O.
Bijnor has ordered him to look after the work of the Food
adulteration under the Act within the Municipal Board area, Kiratpur
in addition to his own usual duties till the trained Food Inspector is
posted in Municipal Board, Kiratpur. Thus , he was authorised to
take sample within the municipal area of Kiratpur and there is no
illegality or embarkment of jurisdictional area of the Food Inspector.

(5)
In the appeal, the same argument was advanced before the
appellate court. The appellate court also was of the view that since
the work of Sri Somendra Kumar as Food Inspector within the
municipal area of Kiratpur has been authenticated by the C.M.O.
Bijnor, there is no fallacy or illegality in taking the sample within the
municipal area of Kiratpur. The appellate court on the above view,
turned down the submission of the counsel for the appellant on this
court.

(6)
In the present revision, the same question of law has been
raised on the force of the observation made by this Court in Ram
Dulare vs. State (1979) (1 ) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases,
269).

(7)
I have had the opportunity to go through the decision of the
above case. In that case the food Inspector had taken the sample of
milk in an area for which he was not appointed as Food Inspector.
He, therefore, stated before the court that he had been orally
instructed by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari to act as Food Inspector
1999
------
Nazar
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& another
------
Bhagwan Din, J.
174 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
over the entire Corporation area. The court held that Nagar Swasthya
Adhikari had no power vested in him to authorise such insepction.

(8)
Section-9 of the Act contemplates an appointment by the
Provincial Govt. of the Food Inspector together with the
specification of the local area over which he is authorised to exercise
jurisdiction. This section makes no provision whereby such power
limiting the area of operation by the State Government can be
delegated to, or exercised by the Health Officer, with respect to the
Sanitary Inspectors who are conferred with the power of Food
Inspector under notification issued in this behalf.

(9)
This court in this case (supra) held that "even assuming that
oral instructions were given by the Health Officer, but Sri Gera had
no jurisdiction to act outside the area of Harbans Mohal and take
sample of Food in Juhi Kalan for which he never was Sanitary
Inspector. Therefore, Sri Gera had no jurisdiction to take sample. As
such, the entire proceedings are vitiated in law."

(10) By notification issued by the State Government, Sri Somendra
Kumar, who was working as Sanitary Inspector, conferred with the
power to exercised and act as Food Inspector in an area of which he
was the Sanitary Inspector. Section-9 of the Act lays donw that the
Central Government or the State Government may, be notification in
the official gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit having the
prescribed qualifications to be Food Inspector for such local areas as
may be asigned by the Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be. Thus the local area within shich
Food Inspector is authorised to act may be assigned by the Central
Government or State Government. The power of the Central
Government or State Government has not been delegated to the
C.M.O. Bijnor to change the area or assign additional jurisdiction of
the area to a Food Inspector for which he was not appointed as a
Food Inspector.

(11) Having regard to the legal proposition contemplated in
section-9 of the Act and also the view taken by this Court on this
Court, I am of the opinion that Sri Somendra Kumar had no
jurisdiction to take sample of the milk within the municipal area of
Kiratpur and, therefore, the entire proceedings and the trial as well
stood vitiated.

1999
------
Nazar
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& another
------
Bhagwan Din, J.
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
175
(12) The revision is, therefore, allowed. The order of the trial court
convicting and sentencing the revisionist is set aside. So also the
order of the appellate court dismissing the appeal and confirming the
conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court is set aside. The
revisionist is on bail, need not to surrender. The bail bonds are
cancelled. The sureties are discharged. The amount of fine
whatsoever deposited by the revisionist in the court shall be refunded
forthwith.
Revision Allowed.
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 1. 0,75$ &
7+( +21·%/( 1. 0,75$ &-
-
7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ -
7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

0V 0HKUD LQWHUQDWLRQDO
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
&RPPLVVLRQHU RI ,QFRPH 7D[ .DQSXU
DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 0U 9LNUDP *XODWL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 6&

6XE 6HFWLRQ $ RI VHFWLRQ ++& RI ,QFRPH 7D[ $FW7KH
SRZHU RI H[WHQWLRQ RI SHULRG FRQIHUUHG E\ VXE VHFWLRQ D RI
6HFWLRQ ++& FDQ EH H[HUFLVHG RQ DQ DSSOLFDWLRQ ZKHWKHU PRYHG
ZLWKLQ VL[ PRQWKV IURP WKH HQG RI WKH SUHYLRXV \HDU RU PRYHG
ZLWKLQ D UHDVRQDEOH SHULRG EH\RQG WKH SHULRG RI VL[ PRQWKV +HOG
SDUD
7KH SRZHU RI H[WHQVLRQ RI SHULRG FRQIHUUHG E\ VXE VHFWLRQ D RI
VHFWLRQ ++& FDQ EH H[HUFLVHG RQ DQ DSSOLFDWLRQ ZKHWKHU PRYHG
ZLWKLQ VL[ PRQWKV IURP WKH HQG RI WKH SUHYLRXV \HDU RU PRYHG
ZLWKLQ D UHDVRQDEOH SHULRG EH\RQG WKH SHULRG RI VL[ PRQWKV

By the Court

1.
Petition on hand is directed against order dated 30th Nov 1998
passed by income Tax Officer (Tech) on behalf of the Commissioner
Income Tax Kanpur thereby refusing to grant extension of time
sought for under sec 80 HHC (2) (a) of the income Tax Act, 1961 on
1999
------
July, 9