ASHWIN H ACHARYA Vs. RAM DUGDHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed Criminal Case No. 566 of 1982 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Municipal) Rajkot against opponents No. 1 to 3 alleging that they have committed offenses punishable under sec. 7(i) read with sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 28-12-1983 the accused gave application Ex. 46 for discharging them without framing a charge on the ground that the complainant not being a qualified Food Inspector all the actions taken by him including filing of the complaint were without the authority of law. The learned Magistrate agreed with the said contention and discharged the accused. Aggrieved by that order the complainant has filed this revision application.

(2.) What is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is erroneous as the evidence on record clearly shows that the complainant possessed the required qualifications and thus he has been validly appointed as a Food Inspector by the order dated 1-1-1981. It was also urged that the learned Magistrate misdirected himself on a question of law and thus erroneously held that the prosecution was not validly instituted against the accused. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be accepted. It is therefore not necessary to decide whether the complainant is a validly appointed Food Inspector even though the finding of the. learned Magistrate on this point does not appear to be correct.

(3.) Sec. 20 of the Act provides for prosecution for the offenses under the Act. Except the offenses under secs. 14 and 14A of the Act and except in case of a prosecution by a purchaser referred to under sec. 12 of the Act prosecution has to be instituted by or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorized in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. This section does not contain any condition or prescribe any qualification as regards the person in whose favor written consent can be given. As observed by the Supreme Court in Corporation of Calcutta v. Md. Omer Ali and Another (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 527 sec. 20(1) inhibits institution of prosecution for an offense under the Act except on fulfillment of one or the other of two conditions. Either the prosecution must be instituted by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or the prosecution should be instituted with the written consent of any one of these four specified categories of authorities or individuals. If either of these two conditions is satisfied it would be sufficient authority for the institution of a prosecution. The two conditions specified in sec. 20(1) are in the alternative and if either of them is satisfied it is sufficient compliance with the requirement of the section. Therefore if it is shown that the person who has instituted a complainant has obtained written consent in his favor from the Comes tent authority. then that should be regarded as sufficient compliance with the requirement of the section In this case it is not in dispute that by a general order dated 10-5-1982 the Municipal Commissioner Rajkot was authorized by the State Government to give written consent for the purpose of instituting prosecutions under the Act. It is also not in dispute that the Municipal Commissioner pursuant to that authority has given written consent to the Food Inspector (present petitioner) on 246 1982 to institute prosecution against the accused for the offense punishable under sec. 7(i) read with sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. On that very day the petitioner filed a complaint against the accused. In view of this settled legal position it must be held that the learned Magistrate committed an error in holding that the prosecution was not validly instituted by the petitioner as he is not a qualified Food Inspector. It is true that after the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court there have been some amendments in sec. 20(1) of the Act. But that does not alter the position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court.