Judgment Anant Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has been convicted Under Sec.16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 300.00 in default to further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The allegation is that on the 6th December, 1958, the petitioner was found to have been storing in his shop, situate in Mohalla Bagmali within Hamper town, mustard oil which, after an examination by a Public Analyst was found to be adulterated with linseed. It was Dr. Hazra (P. W. I) who was the Health Officer for Hajipur town and was supposed to be acting as the Food Inspector within the meaning of Section 9 of the aforesaid Act that took sample of 12 ounces of oil from the petitioners shop. He distributed the oil into three phials, gave one to the petitioner, sent one to the Public Analyst and kept one with himself. After report of the Public Analyst, Dr. Hazra filed a case against the petitioner who was tried by a Magistrate 1st Class and convicted and sentenced in the manner aforesaid. On appeal his conviction has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur by his judgment dated the 4th June, 1960. 3. Mr. Harinandan Singh, appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to two illegalities committed in this case. In the first instance it is said that as required by Section (i)(a) of the Act a Food Inspector before taking sample for analysis has got to give notice in writing to the person from whom the sample is taken. The provision is as follows: II (1) When a Food Inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall (a) give notice in writing then and there of his intention to have it so analysed to the dot-son from whom he has taken the sample.... It is an admitted pusition that Dr. Hazra gave no such notice to the petitioner in writing. The learned Judge would not consider it an illegality because, in his opinion) notice might as well have been given verbally as Dr. Hazra claimed. to have given; but the view taken by the learned Judge is wrong. The provision is clear that the Food Inspector "shall give notice in writing..." The procedure adopted by Dr. The learned Judge would not consider it an illegality because, in his opinion) notice might as well have been given verbally as Dr. Hazra claimed. to have given; but the view taken by the learned Judge is wrong. The provision is clear that the Food Inspector "shall give notice in writing..." The procedure adopted by Dr. Hazra in taking the sample is, therefore, in contravention of the law. 4. Mr. Harinandan Singh next contended that Dr. Hazra had no authority to act as Food Inspector and, therefore, for that reason also, he was not competent to have taken any sample of the oil. 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. Hazra I had not been appointed as a Food Inspector by any Government notification. Reliance was, how-lever, placed on a letter (Ext. 4) which the Special Officer of Hajipur Municipality, Sri G. P. Sinha, bad sent to the Government of Bihar in L. S. G. Department reoommending for the appointment of Dr. Hazra as Food Inspector within the limits of Hajipur Municipality Under Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. A copy of this letter was forwarded by the Special Officer with Memo No. 498, dated the 15th November, 1958, to the Assistant Director of Public Health T. D. Muzafarpur and it appears that on that basis alone Dr. Hazra had started functioning as a Food Inspector. This was wholly without jurisdiction. Mr. Hazra could not act as Food Inspector until the notification appointing him to be a Food Inspector had been duly published. He had, therefore, no authority to take any sample of the oil purporting to act as Food Inspector. The learned Judge has taken a most perverse view Sat Dr. Hazra had authority to act as Food Inspector only on the basis of the letter referred to above. 5. There was no bar to Dr. Hazra acting as an ordinary purchaser within the meaning of Sec.13 of the Act and taking sample from a dealer, but he never purported to act as such but purported to act as Food Inspector which he was not. 6. The whole prosecution was without jurisdiction and it must fail. 5. There was no bar to Dr. Hazra acting as an ordinary purchaser within the meaning of Sec.13 of the Act and taking sample from a dealer, but he never purported to act as such but purported to act as Food Inspector which he was not. 6. 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. The fine, if realised, shall be refunded to him and he is discharged from the bail bond. G.N.Prasad, J. 7 I agree.