STATE OF ORISSA Vs. K RAJESHWARRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was found to have sold adulterated cumin (Jira) on March 13, 1976 punishable under S. 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954, for short 'the Act'. Both the Courts found as a fact that the adulterated cumin was exposed for sale and PW-1, the Food Inspector, purchased the cumin (Jira) under the provisions of the Act and on analysis by the Public Analyst it was found that it contained 9% foreign seeds as against permissible 7.0%; inorganic (dust, stones, lumps of earth etc.) at 0.2% and organic (chaff, stem, stipules, etc.) at 1.8%. Accordingly it was found to have been adulterated. The Magistrate and the High Court acquitted the respondent on the sole ground that his father Appa Rao was the owner of the shop. Had that fact been brought to the notice of the sanctioning authority under S. 20 of the Act, it would not have permitted to prosecute the respondent, the son of the owner. Accordingly placing reliance on Jagannath Sahu v. Food Inspector, Jaipur Municipality, (1973) 2 Cut WR 1556, acquitted the accused and was confirmed by the High Court.

(2.) The sole question that emerges for consideration is whether it is necessary that the respondent should be the owner of the shop for being prosecuted for the offences under S. 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. 7(1) of the act. Sub-section (1) of S. 20 of the Act reads thus:

(3.) It is not in dispute that the officer that granted the sanction in this case is the competent officer as a delegate on.behalf of the local authority. Undoubtedly, a valid sanction is a condition precedent. If no valid sanction was granted by the authority, certainly the accused is entitled to the benefit of statutory infraction, though it is technical and be acquitted of the offence.