JAGNESHWAR SEN GUPTA Vs. BIMAL KANTI PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1959.

(2.) THE complainant -appellant, the Food Inspector of the Agartala Municipality went to the shop of the respondent on 5 -11 -58 and took samples of the mustard oil that he was storing for sale. On the said sample being examined by the Public Analyst of West Bengal it was found to be adulterated with ground -nut oil. Thereupon the appellant sought the permission of the Administrator of the Agartala Municipality (which had been superseded) to prosecute the respondent and written consent having been obtained the complaint was filed under Section 16(I)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954. The respondent was charged under the said section.

(3.) THE only question which arises in this appeal is whether the Administrator had the power under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to sanction the prosecution. In a similar case which came up before this Court in Jagneswar Sen Gupta v. Copal Chandra, Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1059 :, AIR 1961 Tri 18 wherein also the same Magistrate had held that the Administrator had the power to sanction the prosecution under Section 20(1)' and the same Sessions Judge had reversed the said finding, I held agreeing with the Magistrate that Administrator was the local authority under Section 2(viii) of the Act after the supersession of the Board of Commissioners and hence the sanction was properly given.