SULEMAN MIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four revision applications have been filed by the accused petitioners who have been convicted under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). So far as the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 354 of 1971 and 1395 of 1972 are concerned, they have been convicted under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 354 of 1971 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, and the petitioner In Criminal Revision No, 1395 of 1972 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00, or. In default, to undergo simple imprisonment for, one month more. The petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 2270 of 1971 and 540 of 1971 have been convicted under Section 16 (1)(a) of the Act. The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 2270 of 1971 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs, 1,000.00, or. in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months more. The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 540 of 11971 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. or. in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. All these criminal revision applications have been heard together because a common question of law has been raised in all of them, and, as such, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) The prosecution case, in a nutshell, so far as Criminal Revision Nos. 354 of 1971 and 1395 of 1972 are concerned, was that, when the Food inspector visited the shops of the petitioners concerned and wanted to take sample for analysis by the Public Analyst, the petitioners declined to make any sale for sample and pushed out the Food Inspector. So far as the prosecution case in Criminal Revision Nos. 2270 of 1971 and 540 of 1971 is concerned, the Food Inspector visited the shops of the petitioners and purchased linseed oil from the petitioner in Criminal Revision No, 2270 of 1971 and mustard oil from the petitioner, in Criminal Revision No. 540 of 1971. which were sent for analysis to the Public Analyst and, on analysis, it was discovered that they were adulterated.

(3.) In view of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, a prosecution can be instituted only with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority, or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government or the local authority. The petitioners in these applications have raised a point that their prosecutions were instituted in contravention of the provisions of Section 20 (1), and, as such, the trial in each case has been vitiated and the orders of conviction and sentence passed against them are liable t> be quashed by this Court. In this connection it may be mentioned that, so far as Criminal Revision Nos. 354 of 1971. 2270 of 1971 and 1395 of 1972 are concerned, the prosecution was launched after the written consent had been given by the District Medical Officer, Gaya District Board, on the basis of an alleged authorisation by the Administrator of the District Board. Gaya. In Criminal Revision No. 540 of 1971 the prosecution was instituted after written consent had been given by the Administrator. District Board, Santhal Parganas. Now, the question falling for decision is as to whether there was any infirmity in the said written consent given by the District Medical Officer, so far as the aforesaid three applications are concerned, and by the Administrator in the fourth case.