STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BISRAM PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case arises out of a complaint contained in a report made by the Inspector of Supplies under Section 13 (1) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (Central), Act 21 of 1958 for not taking either a permit or a licence as required by the Act The case ended in an order of acquittal passed by the learned magistrate, Nawapara, District Kalahandi.

(2.) A preliminary point was taken that the report about the offence by the inspector of Supplies is not valid in law as it was not made by a person duly authorised in this behalf. Section 15 of the Act is this : "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. "

(3.) WHAT are the facts here? The Inspector of Supplies made the report. There is nothing to show that he was authorised to do so in respect of the particular offence. By Government of Orissa (Supply Department) Notification No, 26160-FCIM-13/59 dated the 22nd October, 1959 the State Government authorised among others an Inspector of Supplies to report to the Courts within the area noted against them in writing in respect of the offences punishable under the said Act. This authority however does not comply with the requirement of authority 'in this behalf as laid down in Section 15. What this section specifically requires is that the person making the report must be so authorised in respect of the particular offence. The phrase 'in this behalf' in the section is not without significance.