REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS Vs. KEDAR NATH MAITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revisional application preferred by the State. In this application the State challenges the validity of an order dated July 8,1975, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Midnapore in Keshiary P, S. Case No. 3 dated 4th Jan. 1975, whereby the learned Magistrate discharged the accused persons who were being prosecuted Under Section 13 of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958. The learned Magistrate has discharged the accused persons solely on the ground that cognizance was not validly taken as it was so taken on a re port which was not lawfully lodged by the competent authority in due compliance with the requirement of Section 15 of the Act,

(2.) SECTION 15 provides : - 'No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by the Licensing Officer or any person duly authorised by the Central Government or the Licensing Officer in this behalf'. Facts - are not in dispute in the present case. The report for the prosecution in this case was submitted by a Sub -Inspector of Police of Keshiary police station. He did so on an authorisation made in his favour by the State Government under a notification dated April, 12, 1969, which is set out hereunder: In the exercise of the power conferred by Section 15 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (2,1 of 1958), read with the Government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture Order No. GSR 512, dated the 22nd Apr., 1959, published at page 225, of Part II, Section 3, Sub -section (1) of the 'Gazette of India', Extraordinary', dated the 22nd Apr. 1959, the Governor is pleased hereby to authorise each of the officers of the Government of West Bengal mentioned in the schedule below to make, for the purposes of the said section 15, reports in writing of the facts constituting offences punishable under the said Act, committed within his jurisdiction : The Schedule (1) The Director of Food, (2) Deputy Directors of Food, (3) Assistant Directors of Food, (4) Police -Officers not below the rank of a Sub -Inspector. It should be noted that such authorisation Under Section 15 was made by the State Government by virtue of an earlier delegation in its favour made by the Central Government by a notification dated Apr, 22, 159 Under Section 19 - of the Act.

(3.) WE have set out Section 15 of the Act hereinbefore. The provision imposes a bar that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act except on a resport in writing of the facts constituting such an offence which is to be made either by the Licensing Officer himself or by any person duly authorised in this behalf by the Central Govern - ment or the Licensing Officer. In plain; reading the words 'in this behalf really mean that the authority given to the person must be an authority to lodge a report in writing of the facts constituting the offence or in other words the authorisation must vest in the delegate -the authority for lodging of the report as contemplated by Section 15. The notification which we have set out hereinbefore1 squarely constitutes an authorisation aa contemplated by the latter part of Section 15. The learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court has, however, taken the view that when a person is to be authorised 'in this behalf the words 'in this behalf must be read to mean with reference to the particular offence on the facts of each case and not a general authorisation. Such an import, in our opinion, does not necessarily follow from the language or the terms o the sections and with greatest respect to the learned Judge we are unable to share the view taken by him, Such a construction of the provision introduces a restriction which does not reasonably follow from the frame of the section or the terms thereof.