RAFIQUE KHAN Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The same points arise in Revision Case No. 231 and in Revision Case No. 232 and this judgment will cover both. It appears that the Petitioners in the two cases were prosecuted tinder Section 7 read with Section 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, before a Municipal Magistrate. The points now taken on behalf of the Petitioners in the two cases are, first, that the Municipal Magistrate as such has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of such an offence and, secondly, that the Corporation of Calcutta not being a local authority is not entitled to file a complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) I shall take up the second point first. Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, lays down that no prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the State Government or a local authority or a person authorized in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority. The Expression "Local authority" is defined in Section 2(viii) as meaning in the case of a local area which is a municipality, the municipal board or municipal corporation. The expression "local area" is defined in Section 2(vii) as any area, whether urban or rural, declared by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, to be a local area for the purpose of this Act. By Notification No. P.H./2503/2R-66/54, Part III, dated June 14, 1955, published in the Calcutta Gazette, dated June 30, 1955, Part, pages 25G0-2561, the area described in Schedule I to the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, as deemed to have been amended under Section 594 of that Act was declared by the State Government to be a local area for the purpose of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. That being so, the Corporation became a local authority for the purpose of filing a complaint under Section 20. The Corporation was, therefore, quite competent to file a complaint against the Petitioners. There is thus no substance in that point.

(3.) The first point, however, is much more substantial. Under Section 20(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, no court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act. The Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed is admittedly a Municipal Magistrate. Municipal Magistrates are appointed under Section 579(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. As the whole question depends on the construction of Sub-section (2) of Section 579 it will be convenient and useful to reproduce the whole of that section. 579(1) The State Government may appoint one or more Magistrates for the trial of offences against-