(1.) The applicant has been convicted under section 16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. He has come in revision.
(2.) Shri Chainsukh Tiwari, Sanitary Inspector Food Inspector, Municipal Committee, Balaghat, purchased milk on 6.5.1972 from the applicant for analysis. It was found to be adulterated and the applicant came to be prosecuted. The only contention raised by the applicant's learned counsel is that the prosecution could not be instituted by Shri Tiwari, Sanitary-cum-Food Inspector, except with the written consent of the local authority. In the present case, he says, there is no document to indicate that written consent was given by the local authority. As regards the notifications referred to in para 6 of the appellate judgment, the learned counsel argued that those notifications authorised the Food Inspector appointed by the State Government to institute prosecutions. Those notifications do not authorise the Food Inspectors appointed by the local authorities to launch prosecutions. The Food Inspectors appointed by the local authorities must launch prosecutions only with the written consent of the local authorities.
(3.) I am not disposed to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel. My attention was drawn to section 2(viii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which defined local authority to mean Municipal Board or Municipal Corporation in the case of Municipality. The State notification in conformity with section 2(viii) of the Act is also to the same effect. (See notification No. 2/1/2655-vii-H, dated the 19th Aug. 1958, and notification No. 5492-XVII-H, dated 18.10.1958.