MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GWALIOR Vs. LURINDAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by learned Single Judge of this Court to the Division Bench in view of the conflicting judgment in the cases of Kishanlal v. Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur; Municipal, Balaghat v. Phoolabai and Municipal Council, Balagaht v. Bhaduram under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the "Act of 1954") and matter has been placed before the Division Bench to answer the reference.

(2.) The background of the facts in which this reference has been made is that the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior filed a complaint under Section 7 (i) and 16(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 against the respondent for selling the adulterated food. The complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 4815/84 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior. After recording the evidence before charge the case was fixed for arguments on the question of framing of charge. At this stage, respondent raised an objection that after amendment in Section 20 of the Act of 1954, the Municipal Corporation has no power to file the complaint. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court upheld the objections and discharged the accused/respondents. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has held that the complaint was filed by Municipal Corporation, Gwalior through Anand Swaroop Bhatnagar/complainant on 13.11.1984 through counsel for the Corporation. Chief Judicial Magistrate held that there was amendment in the Food Adulteration Act in the year of 1976 and the words "local authority" were deleted from the Section and, therefore, the local authority is not competent to file prosecution for an offence under the Act of 1954 and it was further held that Annexure-P/10 which is the copy of the notification of Government of Madhya Pradesh dated 19.8.1958 was issued prior to the amendment in Section 20 of the Act of 1954 and also placing reliance on a decision in the case of Municipal Council Balaghat v. Phoolabai (Criminal Appeal No. 397/1986), the trial Court held that the local authority i.e. Municipal Corporation was not competent to file the complaint, therefore, the complaint filed by the Municipal Corporation was not maintainable and dismissed the complaint and discharged the respondent. Against which Municipal Corporation has filed this Criminal Revision before this Court which was registered as Criminal Revision No.20/1997. When the aforesaid revision came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 12.3.1997. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on two decisions in the case of Phoolabai (supra) and Bhaduram (supra) and the learned counsel for Municipal Corporation, Gwalior placed reliance on a decision in the case of Kishanlal (supra). The learned Single Judge after considering the judgments found that the judgments cited supra are conflicting judgments on the question in dispute therefore referred the matter to the Division Bench for resolving the aforesaid controversy.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record as well as the provisions of amended Section 20 of the Act of 1954 and also the ratio decided in the aforesaid judgments.