RANGLAL MEDICAL STROES Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants were prosecuted under Section 14 read with R. 12-A and Sec. 7 (v) of the Prevention of -Food Adulteration Act. THE Magistrate held that the sanction for the prosection for the alleged offence was not competent. He, accordingly, discharged the accused. THE State went up in revision. THE finding of the Magistrate was reversed, the order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Magistrate for fresh trial.

(2.) THE principal question involved is whether the sanction for the prosecution was valid. THE sanction was in fact granted by the District Medical Officer of Health, Etawah, in the following words : ' Prosecution is sanctioned if I am empowered to sanction it for Municipal Board areas."

(3.) BY a Government Order dated July 29, 1969, the Government appointed all the District Medical Officers to be ex-officio Medical Officers in those Municipalities in which no Medical Officer of Health had been posted. Reading the two notifications it is apparent that primarily the Municipal Medical Officers of Health in Uttar Pradesh had jurisdiction to accord sanction for the prosecution for offences committed in their areas. If in a particular Municipal Board there is no Municipal Medical Officer of Health or in cases where there are no such officer actually posted and working, the jurisdiction has also been conferred on District Medical Officer of Health in respect of Municipal areas. This, to my mind, is the safest way to harmonise both the provisions and to avoid overlapping and uncertainty.