A.K ROY & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 961 · Decided: 29-09-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

. A.K. ROY & ANR. 
v.' 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 1986 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.J. 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: ss. 20(1) and 24(2) 
(e)/Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules, 1958: r. 3-
Prosecution for an offence under the Act-Sub-delegation of power-
Validity of 
Interpretation of Statutes-Use of negative words-Whether 
makes the provision absolute. 
Administrative Law 
Statute-Rules framed thereUnder-Sub-delegation of power-,--
Extent of 
Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 
dealing with cognizance and trial of offences provides that no prosecu-
tion for an offence under that Act shall be instituted except by, or with 
the written consent of :he Central Government or the State Government 
or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by'tbe 
Central or State Government. Section 24(1) empowers the State 
Government to frame rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provi-
sions of the Act, whiles. 24(2) (e) states that such rules may provide for 
the delegation of the powers and functions conferred by this Act on the 
State Government or the Food (Health) .Authority to subordinate or 
local authorities. 
Rule 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules, 
1958 framed by the State Government empowered the State Govern-
ment to delegate its powers to appoint Food Inspectors, to authorise a 
person to institute prosecutions for an offence under the Act and such· 
other powers exercisable by it under the Act as may be specified in the 
order of the Food (Health) Authority of the State. 
961 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986) 3 S.C.R. 
In pursuance of the provisions of r. 3 of the Rules 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 to 
institute prosecutions for an offence under the Act, to the Food (Health) 
Authority. In terms of that Notification the Food (Health) Authority 
issued a Notification dated September 7, 1972 authorising the Food 
Inspector, Faridkot to launch prosecutions under s. 20(1) for an offence 
under the Act. 
On February 1, 1985 the Food Inspector, Faridkot filed a comp-
laint against the appellants for having committed an offence punishable 
u'nder s. 16(1) (a) (ii) of the Act for alleged violation ofrr. 24, 28, 29 and 
32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 
During the course of the proceedings, the appellants raised an 
objection that r. 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) 
Rules, 1958 framed under s. 24(2) (e) read with s. 20(1) of the Act was 
ultra vires the State Government. Alternatively it was urged that by 
virtue of the authilrity derived under r.3 the Food (Health) Authority 
alone had the power to institute prosecution for an offence under the 
Act and, therefore, he could not sub-delegate his powers to launch the 
prosecution to the Food Inspector by the Notification dated September 
7, 1972. This preliminary objection was rejected by the Magistrate and 
he proceeded to frame charges against the appellants. They thereupon 
moved the High Court under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973 for quashing of the aforesaid order taking cognizance of the 
offence and consequent fr~ming of the charge, but the High Court 
dismissed the petition in limine. 
· 
On the question whether the Food Inspector, Faridkot was com-
petent to lodge a complaint against the appellants under s. 20(1) of the 
Act by virtue of the delegation of powers by the Food (Health) Author-
ity, Punjab under the Notification dated September 7, 1972 issued by 
him under r. 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules, 
1958. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court, 
HELD 1. The notification dated September 7, 1972 issued by the 
Food (Health) Authority is ultra vires the Food (Health) Authority 
insofar as he purported to delegate his powers to institute prosecutions 
for an offence under the Act under s. 20(1) to the Food Inspector, 
A.K. ROY v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
963 
Faridkot. The latter was, therefore, not competent to lodge the com-
plaint against the appellants. [9728-C J 
2.1 Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way 
the thing most be done in that way or not at all. Other modes of 
performance are necessarily forbidden. The intention of the Legislature 
in enacting s. 20( 1) was to conf
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.