P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

2. The material facts of the case are these: On 15th December 1961, the Food Inspector took a sample out of the milk in possession of the petitioner and submitted it to the Public Analyst, who found it to be adulterated with water to the extent of 12 per cent. Mr. Shamas-ud-Din, Food Inspector, appeared in support of the prosecution case and also proved the report (Exh. P. B.) of the Public Analyst. The petitioner admitted that he was in possession of 22 seers of milk for sale but denied that he adulterated it and produced evidence in defence, which was rightly disbelieved by the Courts below.

3. Learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner contended that the Inspector who filed the complaint against Siraj Din was not appointed under Ordinance VII of 1960 and he was not authorized by the Director, Health Services, West Pakistan, under section 32 of the Ordinance to file a complaint. The definition of "Inspector" is given in section 2 (j) and reads "Inspector" means an Inspector appointed under this Ordinance. "Director" is defined under section 2 clause (f) of the Ordinance and means Director of Health Services, West Pakistan and includes any person specially empowered for the purposes of this Ordinance by Government- who for the time being performs the duties of that office. In view of subsection (2) of section 39 of the Ordinance, I think the existing Food Inspectors who were appointed under the Punjab Pure Food Act, 1929 continued to exercise the power to file a complaint for contravention or breach of any of the provisions of the Ordinance which are made penal under section 23 of the said Ordinance. The relevant subsection is reproduced below for facility of reference:

"39 (2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the enactments mentioned in subsection (1), everything done and all actions taken, obligation, liability, penalty or punishment incurred, inquiry or proceeding commenced, officer appointed or person authorised, jurisdiction or power conferred, rule made and notification issued under any provisions of the said enactments shall, if not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, continue in force and be deemed to have been respectively done, taken, incurred, commenced, appointed, authorised, conferred, made or issued under this Ordinance." Section 16 of the Ordinance provided for the appointment of Inspectors. It runs as under "

16. Appointment of Inspectors.-(1) The Director, may, and subject to any rules made by Government in this behalf, each Food Authority shall for the area under its jurisdiction, appoint persons to be Inspectors, either specially for any specified food or generally for all Foods Provided that the Health Officer of a local authority shall be an ex officio Inspector in respect of all foods within the area under its jurisdiction. (2) An Inspector appointed by the Director under the provisions of subsection (1) may exercise the powers and perform the functions of an Inspector under this Ordinance throughout the Province or in such area as the Director may direct (3) An Inspector appointed by a Food Authority under the provisions of subsection (1) may exercise the ,;~.~r~ arid perform the functions of, an Inspector under this Ordinance throughout the area over which such Food Authority has jurisdiction or in such part of such area as the Authority may by notification direct. (4) The Director may exercise the powers and perform the functions of an Inspector under this Ordinance throughout the Province, and any Deputy or Assistant - Director working under him may exercise such powers and perform such functions throughout such areas as the Director may by notification direct." In view of section 16 of the Ordinance and the saving clause of section 39, which repealed the previous enactments, I am inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, that the complaint filed against Siraj Din was proper and did not suffer from any defect making the conviction of the petitioner illegal on that ground. The revision petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioner is on bail and shall now surrender to serve out the un-expired portion of his sentence. S. Q. Petition dismissed.