' CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, J.--- Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings in case F.I.R. No.859 of 2011 dated 1-7-2011 under section 23(1)(c) of the Punjab Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 registered at Police Station Gulgasht Multan. As per F.I.R. The Assistant Commissioner City exercising the powers of Price Magistrate Multan lodged the F.I.R. Referred to above against the petitioner and he took the sample of red chillies from the shop of the petitioner which was sent to the Public Analyst who found that it did not conform to the standard as laid down in Pure Food Ordinance. On the receipt of this report. This F.I.R. Was lodged under section 23(1)
(c) of the said Ordinance.
2. The learned. Counsel for the petitioner contends that Assistant Commissioner City/Price Magistrate had no authority under the law to lodge the F.I.R. And all the proceedings conducted by the police in this case are liable to be quashed/set aside being coram non judice. The learned counsel referred to 2003 YLR 1662 (Lahore) wherein it was held that under:-- "that under the relevant provisions of the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 only the Health Officer, Inspector or any public servant authorized by the Government could proceed or register a case against the accused if the sample of a material obtained from him was found by the Public Analyst to be adulterated. Inspector under the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, alone was authorized to conduct raid and obtained sample of food suspected to be adulterated or injurious to human health. The raid conducted by a Magistrate in the company of local police would be unwarranted as neither the Magistrate nor the local police was an inspector."
3. The learned counsel contends that the F.I.R. Registered against the accused is liable to be quashed being without lawful authority in the light of the case-law referred to above. The learned counsel referred to the provisions of section 16 of the said Ordinance and maintained that the Price Magistrate had no jurisdiction or lawful authority to lodge the F.I.R./complaint nor he was competent to take the samples so proceedings conducted by the police in this case are liable to be quashed.
4. The learned D.P.-G. Has vehemently opposed the petition and argued that vide letter dated 27- 6-2011 on the subject "Anti-Adulteration Campaign and other Measures in the Province" all the DCOs, District Officers and Assistant Commissioners were required to implement the instructions of the Government. The learned D.P.-G. Referred to Clause (g) of the said letter which is reproduced as under:- "The adulterators can be proceeded against under the relevant food laws, Local Government Ordinance as well as under Pakistan Penal Code. This may require conferment of powers on suitable officers as deemed appropriate. Necessary action will be required by the Health and Food Department as well as respective district administration."
' The learned D.P.-G. Maintained that under this Notification the Officers of the Local Administration were empowered to take necessary steps: against the adulterators etc so the proceedings of the F.I.R. In question cannot be quashed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides.
6. It is provided in the, notification dated 22-6-2011 that to deal with the adulterators conferment of powers on ,suitable Officers may be required and necessary action will be required by the Health and Food Departments as well as respective district administrations. So, the Government of the Punjab never authorized the Officers of the District administrations to take the law in their hands.
The proper course for the Local Administration was to confer powers of Inspector Health on the Assistant Commissioners or the Magistrates through a notification published in the Official Gazette but the needful was not done. The learned D.P.-G. Has not been able to produce any such notification before the Court. The 'provisions of section 16 of the Punjab Pure Foods Ordinance, 1960, are relevant for the disposal of this constitutional petition,, which are reproduced as under:--- (Appointment of Inspectors.---(1) Government may appoint Inspectors in respect of all or any specified food, and an Inspector so appointed shall have jurisdiction in such area as Government may direct.
(2) Subject to any rides made in this behalf, a Local Authority shall appoint Inspectors in respect of all or any specified food and an Inspector so appointed, shall, unless the Local Authority otherwise directs, exercise the powers and perform the functions of an Inspector under this Ordinance throughout the area over which such Local Authority has jurisdiction.
(3) The Director may exercise the powers and perform the functions of an Inspector under this Ordinance [* * *1 or any other officer working under the Director may exercise such powers and perform such functions of an Inspector within such area as the Director may, by order in writing, direct.
(4) The Health Officers and Sanitary Inspectors of Local Authorities and such other holders of offices and posts in or under a Local Authority and such officers in the service of Government, as Government may, by notification in the official Gazette. Specify in this behalf, shall be ex-officio Inspectors of all foods within the limits of their respective jurisdiction.) (the underlining is mine)
7. A perusal of above provision of law shows that Government may appoint Inspectors in respect of all or any specified food and an Inspector so appointed shall have jurisdiction in such area as the Government may direct. Subject to rules, Local Authority was required to appoint Inspectors in this respect. The Director Health was also empowered to perform the functions of an Inspector under this Ordinance or any other Officer working under the Director could exercise such powers under the order of the Director in writing. The Health Officers and Sanitary Inspectors were competent to perform the functions as required by law. There is no cavil to the proposition that the Government of Punjab could by notification in the official Gazette authorize any other Officer also to work as Inspector within the limits of their respective jurisdiction. No such notification has been placed before this Court whereby the Government may have empowered the Assistant Commissioners/Price Magistrates to perform the functions as Inspector under the said Ordinance.
The complaint could be filed by an authorized Inspector and not the Assistant Commissioner or any other Officer not authorized in this behalf. In these circumstances, keeping in view the above provisions of law, Assistant Commissioner City/Price Magistrate was not authorized c to lodge the complaint/F.I.R. Against the petitioner. I would like to refer to 1991 MLD 4761 (Muhammad Akram v.
The State) wherein it was held that"where in a case neither the Health Officer nor the notified Officer made a report nor a complaint the conviction and the sentence was set aside.
' I would also like to refer to 1996 PCr.LJ 404 (Muhammad Ali v. The State) wherein it was declared:- "that the complaint lodged by the Food Inspector without having been authorized to do so under section 32 of the Ordinance the Court was not competent to take cognizance of the offence on such complaint and the conviction and sentence was set aside."
' The provisions of section 32 of the Punjab Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, are also relevant for the disposal of this petition. The said provisions are reproduced below:- [32. Complaint to be filed by whom.--- No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Ordinance except on the report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a Health Officer of a Local Authority or an Inspector authorized in this .Behalf by a general or special order of the Director or Government."
8. In the light of above discussion, it is abundantly clear that unless a complaint was lodged by a Health Officer or an Inspector authorized in D this behalf no Court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Ordinance. In the instant case, the Assistant Commissioner/Price Magistrate having not been authorized to perform the functions of a Health Officer or an Inspector was not competent to file a complaint or lodge the F.I.R. In the matter. On the complaint/F.I.R.
Lodged by an unauthorized person no Court can take cognizance of the offence. So, all the proceedings including lodging of F.I.R. Conducted in the case so far are without jurisdiction and had no legal effect so the same are hereby quashed.