THE STATE OF U.P. Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of U. P. has filed this appeal against the acquittal of Mool Chand respondent under Sec. 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the judgment of II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jhansi dated 12-9-1975 passed in criminal appeal No. 153 of 1974 against the judgment of City Magistrate Jhansi dated 30-11-1974 passed in case No. 12 of 1974.

(2.) The respondent was tried under Sec. 7/16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the breach of R.I. 44(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The lower appellate Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that consent had been given by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari to the Food Inspector for filing a complaint against the respondent under Sec. 7(l)(iii) 16 of the Act for the breach of R.I. 50 of the Rules. There was no consent given by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari for the prosecution of the respondent for the breach of R.I. 44(e) of the Rules. The complaint filed by the Food Inspector against the respondent for the breach of R.I. 44(e) of the Rules was, therefore, not maintainable in view of Sec. 20 of the Act.

(3.) In the complaint filed by the Food Inspector under Sec. 7(l)(iii) of the Act it was mentioned that the report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample of mustard oil contained 30.3 per cent of linseed oil and that the respondent did not have the licence for selling mustard oil. He was, therefore, guilty under Sec. 7/16 of the Act. Tho written consent given by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari dated 24-11-1973 was for the prosecution of the respondent under Sec. 16 of the Act for the breach of Sec. 7(l)(iii) of the Act read with R.I. 50 of the Rules. No consent was given by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari for the prosecution of the respondent under Sec. 7/16 of the Act for the breach of R.I. 44(e) of the Rules. If written consent is given by the authority concerned for the prosecution of a specified offence no prosecution for a different offence can take place in view of Sec. 20(1) of the Act. I am fortified in my view by the Supreme Court decision in State of Bombay (now Gujarat) Vs. Parshottam Kanaiyalal, 1975 (II) FAC 331 . The prosecution of the respondent for the breach of R.I. 44(e) of the Rules, was therefore, illegal in view of Sec. 20(1) of the Act.