CHEDI PRASAD Vs. CHAIRMAN DALTONGANJ MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted by a Munsif-Magistrate under certain provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months as also to pay a fine of one hundred rupees or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month, for selling haldi (tumeric) in his shop on the 25th January 1963 His appeal against the conviction and sentence before the Sessions Judge of Palaman failed.

(2.) The only question raised by Mrs. Dharamshila Lal. who appeared for the petitioner in this Court is that the cognizance of the case was not taken in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of the said Act; and as there is no decision of this Court on the question raised this case was referred to a Division Bench. Sub-section (1) of Section 20, which is relevant, stood as follows in 1963 and before the amendment by the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act. 1964, published in the Gazette of India. Extra ordinary Part II, dated the 26th December. 1964--

(3.) In the instant case the local authority, i. e.. the Commissioners of Daltonganj Municipality bad admitledly on the 26th September 1957, authorised the executives of the municipality to file a complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act A perusal of Sections 24 and 25 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. 1922, shows that at least the Chairman and on some occasions the Vice-Chairman function as the executives of the Municipality There is no doubt however, that the Chairman always functions as the executive of the Municipality in view of Section 24 of the Municipal Act. which is reproduced below: