NARASIMHA GOVIND KAMAT Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these five cases the question that arises for consideration is whether the Sub Inspector of Police, Honavar, is competent to prosecute the petitioners for not having obtained the licence for running tea shops and a biscuit shop, which is punishable under S.16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) .

(2.) Narasimha Govind Kamath (Petitioner in CrRP.205/1971), Ganapathi Vithoba Shet (Petitioner in CrRP.206/1971) Ramakant Anant Shanbhag (Petitioner CrRP. 207/1971) Nilabal Vasudev Shet (Petitioner in CrRP.208/1971) and Subraya Nagappa Shet (Petitioner in CrRP.209/71} were prosecuted on the allegations that except Ramakant (Petitioner in CrRP.207/1971) the others were running tea shops keeping food articles for sale in their respective shops without obtaining a licence for the year 1969-70 as required by S.7(iii) of the Act read with S.50(1) of the Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under S.16(1) of the Act. Ramakant Anant Shanbhag (Petitioner in CrRP.207/71) was prosecuted for a similar offence for running a shop in which he was selling biscuita and other foodstuffs, in the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Honavar.

(3.) It was objected on behalf of the petitioners that a prosecution under S.20 of the Act could only be instituted by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by general or special order of the Central Government or State Government or a local authority and could not be instituted by any other person. The learned Magistrate decided in favour of the petitioners and dismissed the complaints without hearing the evidence. On revision, the learned Sessions Judge, Karwer, in all these cases came to the conclusion that the Sub Inspector of Police was competent to prosecute the petitioners and in that view he directed the learned Magistrate to dispose of the cases as if they had been filed by the competent authority and according to law. These revision petitions are filed by the petitioners against the decisions of the learned Sessions Judge at Karwar.