STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. VELLAYA NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Food Inspector, attached to the Nelliyalam Panchayat filed a complaint against the Respondent under Ss.7 and 16(1) read with S. 21(1)(a)(h) and Rule 44 (a) (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, stating therein that the latter on 29th February 1968 at about 12 -30 p.m. at Nalliyalam was found in possession and sold smooth pea flour which on analysis was found to be admixed with 25 % of Kesari dal, the use of which in food is injurious to health.

(2.) CLAUSE (1) of S. 20 states that 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 local authority. S. 9 of the Act provides for the appointment of Food Inspectors. In exercise of the power conferred by S. 9 the Government of Madras in G.O. No. 2521 Health dated 26th November 1956 has appointed the Municipal Health Officer and the Sanitary Inspectors under his control in each Municipality as food Inspectors for the purpose of the Act. In G.O. No. 1861 Health dated 6th June 1956 all Food Inspectors have been authorised to institute prosecutions for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as required under Section 20 (1) of the Act. The notification reads thus:

(3.) Following the decision of Issac, J. in Abdulla Haji v. Food Inspector, Mulliyar Panchayat : 1967 Cri.L.J. 1719 the learned Magistrate has held that G.O. 1861 dated 6th June 1956 can apply only to the Food Inspectors appointed under the Act on the date prior to this notification and not to food Inspectors appointed on any subsequent date. Subsequently in the decision in Subbayan Muthukumaran v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1968 Ker. 330, the Bench of the Court to which Issac J. himself was a party has held that S. 20(1) as it now stands does not require a special authorisation or an authorisation of any officer by name. In other words, a general authorisation is sufficient. It need not be by name. "What stands in the way of a court taking cognisance of an offence under the Act is S. 20(1); and what the court has, therefore, to see is only whether the prosecution has been instituted by any one of the authorities or persons mentioned in the said section".