S.S. Dewan, J.
1. This revision arises out of the judgment dated January 27, 1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda. dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner against his conviction and sentence under Section 7 read with Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act).
2. On September 24, 1974, Dr. R.P. Mittal, Government Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. P. N. Kaura visited the shop of Des Rai accused at Sangal Mandi and purchased 3 sealed bottles of synthetic vinegar for analysis on payment of Rs, 4.50 p., which were allegedly manufactured by M/s. Jai R.S Industries, Sunam. Vide report, Exhibit P. D., the sample sent to the Public Analyst, was found to be adulterated as it contained 2.46 grams of acetic acid per hundred mililitre against the minimum prescribed standard of 3.75 grams per hundred mililitre. A complaint was filed against Des Raj. On an application made by Des Raj, Vinod Kumar petitioner was ordered to be summoned by the trial Court. The defence set up by the applicant Des Rai was that he had purchased the bottles of vinegar from M/s. Jai R.S. Industries. Sunam and he sold them in the same condition.
3. The main thrust of the learned Counsel for the petitioner's argument in the Court below and also before me was that Dr. Mittal had no authority to act as a Food Inspector and, therefore, for that reason he was not competent to have taken any sample of vinegar. As provided in Section 9 of the Act, a Food Inspector is required to be appointed by the State Government by a notification in the official gazette and it is the admitted position that Dr. Mittal had been appointed as a Food Inspector vide Notification No, Drugs/3/Punjab/74/23/33 D/-18-7-1074 but the said notification was published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 13th December, 1974, whereas the sample was purchased by Dr. Mittal on 24-9-1974. It is thus manifest that Dr. Mittal could not act as a Food inspector until the notification appointing him to be the Food Inspector had been duly published. He had, therefore, no authority to lake any sample of vinegar purporting to act as Food Inspector. The courts below have taken a most perverse view that Dr. Mittal had the authority to act as a Food Inspector as he was appointed on 18-7-1974.
4. There was no bar to Dr. Mittal acting as an ordinary purchaser within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act and taking the sample from a dealer but he never purported to act as such but purported to act as a Food Inspector which he was not.
5. The whole prosecution was without jurisdiction and it must fail. The petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner are set aside. Fine, if realised, shall be refunded to him and he is discharged from the bail bond.