Case ID: 5276

Judgment:
N: Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 1986 From the Judgment and order dated 12.2.1986 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. No. 202 M/86. Dr. Y.S. Chitale	 Ravinder Narain	 D.N. Misra and P.K. Ram for the Appellants. H.K. Puri and R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN	 J. This appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated February 12	 1986 raises a question of some importance. The question is whether the Food Inspector	 Faridkot was competent to lodge a complaint against the appellants under section 20(1) of the Act for commission of an offence punishable under section 16(1) (a) (ii) of the (for short 'the Act ') by virtue of the delegation of powers by the Food (Health) Authority	 Punjab under notification dated September 7	 1972 purported to have been issued by him under r. 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules	 1958. 965 Put very shortly	 the essential facts are these. Appellant No. 2	 Messrs Food Specialities Limited is a company incorporated under the engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various well known articles of food including New Maggi 2 minute noodles with sweet sour taste maker while appellant No. 1 A.K. Roy is the Manager	 Quality Controller of the Company. On December 14	 1984 at about 3.30 p.m. the Food Inspector	 Faridkot purchased a sample of New Maggi Noodles from the shop of a general merchant for purposes of analysis The Public Analyst by his report dated January 17	 1985 opined that the said article of food contains carmosine and sunset yellow acid coal tar dye instead of caramel as described on the label and was therefore both adulterated as well as misbranded. He further opined that the label of the article of food did not comply with the requirements of rr. 24 and 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules	 1955 regarding the addition of extraneous colouring matter. On February 1	 1985 the Food Inspector	 Faridkot filed a complaint against the general merchant as well as the appellants for having committed an offence punishable under section 16(1) (a) (ii) of the Act for alleged violation of rr. 24	 28	 29 and 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules	 1955 by virtue of the delegation of powers by the Food (Health) Authority under notification dated October 10	 1968 purported to have been issued by him under r. 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules	 1958. During the course of the proceedings	 the appellants raised an objection inter alia that r. 3 of the Rules framed by the State Government in purported exercise of powers under section 24(2) read with section 20(1) of the Act	 was ultra vires the State Government and alternatively by virtue of the authority derived under r. 3 of the said Rules	 the Food (Health) Authority alone had the power to initiate prosecutions for an offence under the Act and therefore he could not legally by the impugned notification sub delegate his powers to launch the prosecutions to the Food Inspector. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate by his order dated December 4	 1985 rejected the preliminary objection raised as to the power of the Food Inspector to launch the prosecution under section 20(1) read with section 9 of the Act	 on the ground that the State Government having delegated its powers to the Food (Health) Authority by framing r.3 under section 24(2)(e) of the Act	 the Food (Health) Authority was competent to issue the impugned notification and therefore the complaint was validly lodged. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate further proceeded to frame charges against the appellants for having committed an offence punishable 966 under section 16(1) (a) (ii) of the Act. Thereafter	 the appellants moved the High Court by petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure	 1973 for quashing the impugned order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and the consequent framing of the charge by him. High Court did not go into the question and dismissed the petition in limine	 It is argued on behalf of the appellants that as a matter of construction the first part of section 20(1) of the Act makes it clear that a prosecution for offences under the Act not being an offence under section 14 or section 14A	 can be instituted only by one of the following authorities	 namely: (i) the Central Government or the State Government	 or (ii) with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government	 or (iii) a person authorised in this behalf by a general or special order by the Central Government or the State Government	 or (iv) with the written consent of a person so authorised. It is urged that the opening words of section 20(1) 'No prosecution for an offence under this Act . shall be instituted except by ' being of a negative character	 the requirements of the section are imperative and that a discretionary power must	 in general	 by exercised by the authority to which it has been committed. Emphasis is placed on the words 'in this behalf ' in the second part of section 20(1) of the Act for the submission that the delegation of powers to launch a prosecution by the Central Government or the State Government	 by general or special order	 must be for a specific purpose in that behalf viz. to authorise the institution of prosecutions under the Act. It was accordingly submitted that r. 3 of the Punjab Rules enables the Food (Health) Authority to sub delegate his power 'to authorise the launching of a prosecution for an offence under the Act ' to the Food Inspector	 was ultra vires the State Government and could not be sustained on the terms of section 24(2) (e) i.e. the general power of the State Government under section 24(2) (e) of delegation of its powers and functions under the Act. In reply	 the learned counsel for the respondents contends that r.3 is in the nature of a general order in terms of section 20(1) of the Act and therefore the State Government has not only delegated its powers 'to launch a prosecution for an offence under the Act ' under section 20(1) to the Food (Health) Authority i.e. the Director of Health Services	 Punjab but also under the said rule provision has been made for further sub delegation of his power to authorise the launching of prosecutions under s . 20(1) to the Food Inspectors. In order to appreciate the contentions it is necessary to refer to 967 the relevant provisions. Sub section (1) of section 20 of the Act which is material for our purposes	 provides as follows: "20(1). Cognizance and trial of offences No prosecution for an offence under this Act	 not being an offence under section 14 or section 14A shall be instituted except by	 or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf	 by general or special order	 by the Central Government or the State Government. " Sub section (1) of section 24 of the Act empowers the State Government to frame rules after consultation with the Committee and subject to the condition of previous publication	 for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act not falling within the purview of section 23. Sub section (2) thereof provides that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power	 the State Government may make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act in matters not falling within the purview of section 23. section 24(2) (e) of the Act provides: "24(2). In particular	 and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power	 such rules may (e) provide for the delegation of the powers and functions conferred by this Act on the State Government or the Food (Health) Authority to subordinate authorities or to local authorities. " In exercise of the powers under section 24(2) (e) of the Act	 the Punjab Government framed the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules	 1958. R. 3 of the Rules reads as under: "Rule 3 Power of Food (Health) Authority The State Government may	 by an order in writing 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 of Punjab" In accordance with r. 3	 the State Government issued a notification dated October 10	 1968 purporting to delegate its powers and functions conferred by section 20(1) of the Act viz. to initiate prosecutions 968 for an offence under the Act	 to the Food (Health) Authority	 to the effect: "In pursuance of the provisions of rule 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules	 1958	 the President of India is pleased to delegate to the Food (Health) Authority its powers of appointment of Food Inspectors and to authorise institution of prosecution for an offence under the . " In terms of the aforesaid notification	 the Food (Health) Authority issued a notification dated September 7	 1972 authorising the Food Inspector	 Faridkot to launch prosecution under section 20(1) for an offence under the Act	 in these terms: "No. IV I Pb 72/7518 2(i) In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the (Act No. 37 of 1954) read with Rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 and the powers delegated vide Punjab Government Notification No. 5575 HB/L 68/29659 dated 10th October	 1968	 Shri Jagrup Singh is hereby appointed as Government Food Inspector for all the local areas in the District	 in which the official is posted as Government Food Inspector. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 20 of the (Act No. 37 of 1954) read with Punjab Government Notification No.5575 2HBI 1/68/29659 dated 10th October	 1968 the Director	 Health Services	 Punjab also authorises the above mentioned Food Inspector to institute prosecution against the persons committing offences under the said Act within the limits of local areas. " In this appeal	 two main questions arise	 namely: (i) Whether r. 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules	 1958 framed under section 24(2) (e) of the Act being contrary to the legislative mandate contained in section 20(1) of the Act	 was ultra vires the State Government and therefore the impugned notification issued by the State Government dated October 10	 1968 purporting to delegate its powers under section 20(1) to the Food (Health) Authority viz. to authorise the institution 969 of prosecutions for an offence under the Act	 was liable to be struck down. Consequently	 whether the impugned notification dated September 7	 1972 issued by the Food (Health) Authority authorising the Food Inspector	 Faridkot to institute such prosecutions was illegal	 bad in law and void ab initio. (ii) Even if r. 3 of the said Rules could be regarded as a general order issued by the State Government in terms r of section 20(1) of the Act authorising the Food (Health) Authority to launch prosecutions for an offence under the Act by the framing of a rule under section 24(2) (e) of the Act	 whether the Food (Health) Authority by the impugned notification dated September 7	 1972 could	 in his turn	 sub delegate his powers to the Food Inspector	 Faridkot. The ultimate question is whether the terms of section 20(1) of the Act do not postulate further delegation by the person authorised to institute prosecutions for an offence under the Act; he can only give his written consent to such prosecution. It is common ground that the prosecution in the instant case has not been launched either by or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government. It therefore becomes necessary to ascertain whether the Food Inspector	 Faridkot was duly authorised to launch a prosecution. The Food Inspector had been conferred powers of the State Government under section 20(l) of the Act viz. to initiate prosecutions for an offence under the Act	 by the Food (Health) Authority i.e. the Director of Health Services. A mere perusal of the impugned notification dated September 7	1972 makes it manifest that it was the Director of Health Services and not the State Government who had authorised the Food Inspector to launch prosecutions for an offence under the Act. It is therefore clear that the Food Inspector is not a person who has been authorised by any general or special order issued by the Central Government or the State Government. There would be no problem if the State Government were to issue a notification under section 20(l) of the Act conferring authority on the Food Inspector	 Faridkot under section 20(l) to launch prosecutions for an offence under the Act as is the practice in the other States. A careful analysis of the language of section 20(l) of the Act clearly shows that it inhibits institution of prosecutions for an offence under the Act except on fulfillment of one or the other or the two conditions. Either the prosecutions must be instituted by the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government	 or the prosecutions 970 should be instituted with the written consent of any of the four specified categories of authorities or persons. If either of these two conditions is satisfied	 there would be sufficient authority for the institution of such a prosecution for an offence under the Act. The provision contained in section 20(1) of the Act does not contemplate the institution of a prosecution by any person other than those designated. The terms of section 20 (1) do not envisage further delegation of powers by the person authorised	 except that such prosecution may be instituted with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or the person authorised. The use of the negative words in section 20(1) "No prosecution for an offence under this Act . shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of" plainly make the requirements of the section imperative. That conclusion of ours must necessarily follow from the well known rule of construction of inference to be drawn from the negative language used in a statute stated by Craies on Statute Law	 6th edn.	 p. 263 in his own terse language: "If the requirements of a statute which prescribe the manner in which something is to be done are expressed in negative language	 that is to say	 if the statute enacts that it shall be done in such a manner and in no other manner	 it has been laid down that those requirements are in all cases absolute	 and that neglect to attend to them will invalidate the whole proceeding. " Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way	 the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. The intention of the Legislature in enacting section 20(1) was to confer a power on the authorities specified therein which power had to be exercised in the manner provided and not otherwise. The first part of section 20(1) of the Act lays down the manner of launching prosecutions for an offence under the Act	 not being an offence under section 14 or section 14A. The second part provides for delegation of powers by the Central Government or the State Government. It enables that prosecutions for an offence under the Act can also be instituted with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or by a person authorised in that behalf	 by a general or special order issued by the Central Government or the State 3 Government. The use of the words 'in this behalf ' in section 20(1) of the Act shows that the delegation of such power by the Central Government or 971 the State Government by general or special order must be for a specific purpose	 to authorise a designated person to institute such prosecutions on their behalf. The terms of section 20( 1) of the Act do not postulate further delegation by the person so authorised; he can only give his consent in writing when he is satisfied that a prima facie case exists in the facts of a particular case and records his reasons for the launching of such prosecution in the public interest. In the case of statutory powers the important question is whether on a true construction of the Act	 it is intended that a power conferred upon A may be exercised on A 's authority by B. The maxim delegatus non potest delegare merely indicates that this is not normally allowable but the Legislature can always provide for sub delegation of powers. The provision contained in sections 24(2) (e) enables the State Government to frame a rule for delegation of powers and functions under the Act but it clearly does not envisage any sub delegation. That apart	 a rule framed under section 24(2) (e) can only provide for delegation of minor administrative functions e.g. appointment of Food Inspectors	 Food (Health) Authority etc. In the case of important executive functions like the one contained in section 20(1) of the Act to authorise launching of prosecutions for an offence under the Act which is in the nature of a safeguard	 the Courts may be disposed to construe general powers of delegation restrictively. Keeping in view the language of section 20(1) and 24(2) (e) of the Act	 r. 3 of the Punjab Rules can be treated to be a general order issued by the State Government to authorise the Food (Health) Authority i.e. the Director of Health Services to institute prosecutions for an offence under the Act. Unfortunately	 the draftsmen of r. 3 more or less employed the language of section 20(1) of the Act. If r. 3 were to be literally interpreted	 the words "to authorise the launching of prosecutions" may lead to the consequence that the Food (Health) Authority who had been delegated the power of the State Government under section 20(1) of the Act could	 in his turn	 sub delegate his powers to the Food Inspector. Such a consequence is not envisaged by section 20(1) of the Act. It is well settled that rules framed pursuant to a power conferred by a statute cannot proceed or go against the specific provisions of the statute. It must therefore follow as a logical consequence that r. 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules	 1958 must be read subject to the provisions contained in section 20(1) of the and cannot be construed to authorise sub delegation of powers by the Food (Health) Authority	 Punjab to the Food Inspector	 Faridkot. If so construed	 as it must	 it would mean that the Food (Health) Authority was the 972 person authorised by the State Government to initiate prosecutions. It was also permissible for the Food (Health) Authority being the person authorised under section 20(1) of the Act to give his written consent for the institution of such prosecutions by the Food Inspector	 Faridkot as laid down by this Court in State of Bombay vs Parshottam Kanaiyalal	 ; and The Corporation of Calcutta vs Md. Omer Ali & Anr.	 In the premises	 the impugned notification dated September 7	 1972 issued by the Food (Health) Authority must be declared as ultra vires the Food (Health) Authority insofar as the purported to delegate his powers to institute prosecutions for an offence under the Act under section 20(1) to the Food Inspector	 Faridkot. It must accordingly follow that the Food Inspector	 Faridkot was not competent to lodge the complaint against the appellants for having committed an offence punishable under section 16(1) (a) (ii) read with section 9 of the . In the result	 the appeal must succeed and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate	 Moga are set aside. P.S.S. Appeal allowed.

Summary:
Section 20(1) of the dealing with cognizance and trial of offences provides that no prosecution for an offence under that Act shall be instituted except by	 or with the written consent o ' he Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf	 by general or special order	 by the Central or State Government. Section 24(1) empowers the State Government to frame rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act	 while section 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 Government 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 m the order of the Food (Health) Authority of the State. 962 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 section 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 section 20(1) for an offence under the Act. On February 1	 1985 the Food Inspector	 Faridkot filed a complaint against the appellants for having committed an offence punishable under section 16(1) (a) (ii) of the Act for alleged violation of rr. 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 section 24(2) (e) read with section 20(1) of the Act was ultra vires the State Government. Alternatively it was urged that by virtue of the authority 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 section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure	 1973 for quashing of the aforesaid order taking cognizance of the offence and consequent framing of the charge	 but the High Court dismissed the petition in limine. On the question whether the Food Inspector	 Faridkot was competent to lodge a complaint against the appellants under section 20(1) of the Act by virtue of the delegation of powers by the Food (Health) Authority	 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 section 20(1) to the Food Inspector	 963 Faridkot. The latter was	 therefore	 not competent to lodge the complaint against the appellants. [972B C] 2.1 Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. The intention of the Legislature in enacting section 20(1) was to confer power on the authority specified therein	 which power had to be exercised in the manner provided and not otherwise. [970E F] 2.2 The use of the negative words in section 20(1) that 'no prosecution for an offence under this Act. shall be instituted except by	 or with the written consent of plainly make the requirements of the section imperative. They inhibit insufficient of prosecutions for an offence under the Act except where it is done by the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government	 or where the prosecution is instituted with the written consent of any of the four specified categories of authorities or persons. If either of these two conditions is satisfied	 there would be sufficient authority for the institution of such a prosecution for an offence under the Act. [970C; 969G H; 970A B] Craies on Statute Law	 6th edn.	 p. 263 referred to. The use of the expression 'in this behalf ' in section 20(1) shows that the delegation of such power by the Central Government or the State Government by general or special order must be for a specific purpose	 to authorise a designated person to institute such prosecutions on their behalf. The terms of the section do not postulate further delegation of powers by the person authorised. He can only give his consent in writing when he is satisfied that a prima facie case exists in the facts of a particular case and records his reasons for the launching of such prosecution in public interest. [966E; 971A B] 4.1. Rules framed pursuant to a power conferred by a statute cannot proceed or go against the specific provisions of the statute. The maxim delegatus non potest delegare merely indicates that sub delegation of powers is not normally allowable but the Legislature can always provide for it. The provision contained in section 24(2) (e) of the Act enables the State Government to frame a rule for delegation of powers and functions under the Act but it clearly does not envisage any sub delegation. [971C	D] 964 4.2. Rule 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules	 1958 must	 therefore	 he read subject to the provisions contained in section 20(l) of the . It cannot be construed to authorise sub delegation of powers by the Food (Health) Authority	 Punjab to the Food Inspector. So construed	 it means that in the instant case	 the Food (Health) Authority was the person authorised by the State Government to initiate prosecutions. [971G H; 972A] 4.3 It was open to the State Government to have issued a notification under section 20(1) conferring authority on the Food Inspector to launch prosecutions for an offence under the Act	 as is the practice in other States. The Food Inspector having been authorised by the Director of Health Service and not the State Government	 he was not a person who had been authorised by any general or special order issued by the Central Government or the State Governments. [969G H] State of Bombay vs Parshottam Kanaiyalal	 ; & The Corporation of Calcutta vs Md. Omer Ali & Anr.	 referred to.