Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1968 DIGILAW 107 (ALL)

Prabhu Dayal v. State

1968-02-28

RAJESHWARI PRASAD

body1968
ORDER Rajeshwari Prasad, J. - This is a petition in revision filed by Shri Prabhu Dayal. The Petitioner was convicted and awarded the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees one thousand u/s 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. One of the grounds raised in this petition is that the orders of the courts below are liable to be set aside on the ground that the public analyst and the Food Inspector who took action in this case were not duly appointed as such under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Amendment Act (Act No. 49 of 1964) and they did not have the authority to perform duties of their respective offices in respect of an occurrence which was alleged to have taken place after Act No. 49 of 1964 had come into force. 3. I granted time to Mr. B.C. Saxena Learned Counsel for the Respondent to find out and inform me if any notification regarding the appointment of the persons concerned was made under the amended Act. Mr. Saxena, however, informed me that no such notification under the amended Act was made. I have, therefore, to assume that the Public Analyst and the Food Inspector who took action in the instant case were officers who were appointed under the unamended Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and were not appointed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Amendment Act No. 49 of 1964. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has taken me through various provisions of the two Acts in order to establish that drastic changes in the panel of Central Committee for Food Standard u/s 3 of Act No. 49 1964 have been effected. It is also clear that the Central Government had to frame rules u/s 23 of the Act in consultation with the newly prescribed committee. The Central Government has, however, failed to frame rules under Act No. 49 of 1964. The rules framed under the unamended Act are obviously inapplicable after the Act had been amended in 1964. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case Municipal Board Kanpur v. Behari Lal 1960 AWR 229 . The rules framed under the unamended Act are obviously inapplicable after the Act had been amended in 1964. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case Municipal Board Kanpur v. Behari Lal 1960 AWR 229 . The question that had arisen in that Full Bench case was whether the Public Analyst appointed under the provisions of the U.P. Pure Food Act continued to hold the authority of that office after the enforcement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It was held that even if it be the case that the appointment is saved by virtue of provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the only result would be that Dr. A.C. Chatterjee would continue to be a Public Analyst under the Pure Food Act. He could not be deemed to be a Public Analyst within the meaning of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The decision of this Court in the case of Municipal Board Lucknow v. Shyam Behari 1960 AWR 127 to the contrary was held to be erroneous. In view of the decision of the Full Bench, it must be held that even with the aid of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the Public Analyst and the Food Inspector appointed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 would not be deemed to be Public Analyst and Food Inspector under the Amending Act, 1964. 6. That Full Bench decision was sought to be distinguished on the ground that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 expressly repealed the Pure Food Act, while the Amending Act 1964 only amends the Act of 1954 and does not repeal it. In the case of New Singhal Dal Mill Vs. Firm Sheo Prasad Jainti Prasad, AIR 1958 All 404 , a Division Bench of this Court while considering a similar question took the view that all the law governing such a question is contained in Section 6 of the UP General Clauses Act. That section deals with the effect of repeal of Acts. Obviously, it did not deal expressly with the effect of amendment of an Act. There was, however, no other law which laid down the effect of amendment of an Act. That section deals with the effect of repeal of Acts. Obviously, it did not deal expressly with the effect of amendment of an Act. There was, however, no other law which laid down the effect of amendment of an Act. It was held that the question of effect of an amendment is not different from that of the effect of repeal of an Act. It is, therefore, clear that in the case where the incoming Act only amends the previously existing Act, but does not repeal it, it is Section 6 of the General Clauses Act to which one must look to answer a question such as the one that has arisen in the instant case. It appears that the effect oft an Amending Act must be the same as that of a repealing Act. In Sutherland Statutory Construction Volume I Third Edition page 325, it has been stated that any change of the scope or effect of an existing statute whether by addition, omission or substitution of provisions, which does not wholly terminate its existence, whether by an Act purporting to amend, repeal, revise or supplement, or by an Act independent and original in form has to be treated as a mandatory. It may, therefore, safely be held that the amendment of a statute operates to repeal it. The mere fact that the legislature enacts an Amending Act, would by itself indicate that t intended to change the original Act by creating a new right or withdrawing an existing one. The effect of Amendment, therefore, is two fold, namely, to repeal and to enact. The distinction sought to be drawn by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, therefore, is not based on any real difference. In the view that I take, it must be held that the conviction of the Petitioner based on the reports of the Public Analyst and the Food Inspector in this case is illegal. 7. The petition in revision is allowed, conviction and sentence of the Petitioner u/s 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is set aside and the Petitioner is acquitted. The Petitioner is on bail. His bail bond; are discharged. He need not surrender.