STAE OF GUJARAT Vs. PARSHOTTAM KANAIYALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave of this Court raises a very short point regarding the construction of S. 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954).

(2.) The respondent owned a milk shop within the Municipal limits of the city of Baroda. The Food Inspector of the Municipality visited the shop on July 9, 1956, and purchased milk for analysis. This was sent to the Public Analyst and when his report was to the effect that the sample was adulterated, the Inspector applied to the Chief Officer, Borough Municipality, Borada for the latter's consent, for instituting criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (referred to hereafter as the Act) against the respondent. A consent in writing to the initiation of this prosecution was given by the Chief Officer and thereafter the complaint out of which this appeal arises was instituted charging the respondent with an offence under S. 16 read with S. 7 of the Act for selling adulterated food.

(3.) The case was tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baroda. Besides denying his guilt, the accused raised various technical objections, the principal of which was that the prosecution was incompetent because of non-compliance with the terms of S. 20(1) of the Act. This provision omitting the proviso to which it is unnecessary to refer, runs: "No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority."