NAGNATH KASHIRAM CHOUDHARI Vs. NANDED MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision application, the original accused challenges the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nanded dismissing appeal against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded convicting him for the offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year in two criminal cases, viz. Criminal Case Nos. 833 and 835 of 1972. In the view, I am taking, about the jurisdiction of the Court to take the cognizance of the case, it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. It appears that on 6-10-1970 one Madhukar Rode, Sanitary Inspector of the Nanded Municipality went and took the samples of sweet oil from two tins from the accused, who is a grocer. The samples being sent to the Public Analyst were found to be adulterated as appears from the reports, Exhs. 23 and 24. Thereafter the two prosecutions came to be filed, but as they were filed sometime in March, 1971 by the complainant, Madhukar Rode and as it was discovered that Rode had no authority to file the same, they were withdrawn. Thereafter, the prosecutions came to be launched on the basis of the alleged sanction, Exh. 9, dated 27-12-1971 of the General Body of the Nanded Municipality, authorising Rode to prosecute the accused for the offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The two complaints in respect of the two samples were actually filed on 24th May, 1972. On 31-1-1973 the accused applied for a certified copy of the sanction to prosecute him. The copy Exh. 34, was supplied to him on 15th February, 1973, It may be mentioned that this copy, which purports to be a copy of the Resolution No. 67 dated 27th December, 1971, specially provides that the Food Inspectors mentioned therein including Madhukar Rode were authorised to start the prosecution in respect of the offences detected as and from 16th November, 1971. Since, in the instant cases the detection was made on 6th October, 1970, it was contended by the accused in both the lower courts that having regard to the sanction, Exh. 34, which authorised Madhukar Rode to start the prosecution in respect of the offence detected as and from 16th November, 1971, only the present prosecutions were bad and without authority. Both the courts below repelled that contention taking the view that the original sanction, Exh. 9, Dated 27th December, 1971, the copy of which is at Exh. 9, filed by the prosecution, does not contain any such restriction about the authority being limited in respect of the cases detected from and after 16th November, 1971. Relying on the explanation, Exh. 36, of the Advocate for the Food Inspector, who tried to explain the discrepancy between Exh. 9, the copy of the sanction filed by the Prosecutor, and Exh. 34, copy of the sanction filed by the accused that the original sanction was as per Exh. 9 and that it was only because of the amendment dated 27th December, 1972, as appears from Exh. 37 that the copy of the resolution supplied to the accused on 15th February, 1973 contains the words "the cases detected from and after 16th November, 1971". This submission has found favour with both the courts below and the submission of the accused, that having regard to Exh. 34, the copy supplied to him, Mr. Rode, had no authority to initiate the proceedings, has been repelled. But then, when one looks to Exh. 37, the copy of the amended resolution dated 27th December, 1972, on which the explanation, Exh. 36, of the Counsel for the Nanded Municipality was founded, and which explanation has found favour with both the courts below, it would appear that explanation cannot stand the test of scrutiny. The clear wording of the resolution, Exh. 37 dated 27th December, 1972, in terms shows that when the resolution No. 67 dated 27th December, 1971 was passed, it did contain; meaning thereby the cases dated from 16-11-1971 and that portion was in fact even on the date of the amended resolution viz. the resolution dated 27th December, 1972 and that part should be amended. In order words, a careful reading of Exh. 37, will show that the resolution, as it stood on 27-12-1971, was identical in terms with the copy, Exh. 34, which was supplied to the accused on 15-2-1972 and was not at all as per the copy Exh. 9. In fact, Exh. 37 the resolution dated 27-12-1972, confirms the contents of Exh. 34 and proves unequivocally that even when the resolution dated 27-12-1972 was passed, the contents in Exh. 34 to the effect that the officers mentioned therein were authorised to start the prosecutions in respect of the offences committed from 16-11-1971, were in fact in existence. If that is so, one wonders how this part was incorporated in Exh. 9, when the copy of that resolution was produced by the prosecution at Exh. 9. A perusal of Exs. 34 and 37 would show that even when the Resolution was passed on 27-12-1971 it was in the terms mentioned in Exh. 34. If that is so, it would follow that the complainant could have launched the prosecutions only in respect of the cases made out as and from 16-11-1971 and not the cases detected prior thereto. In fact, as the position stands, even the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor, Mr. Kamat and Mr. Godhamgaonkar, the learned Counsel for Nanded Municipality could not dispute that was the correct interpretation of the record and that there is no possibility of it being interpreted in any other manner. Having regard to that position, it would appear that the revision application has got to succeed on that ground and that it must be held that Madhukar Rode had no authority to start these prosecutions. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below is set aside. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded. Rule absolute.