LAWS(J&K)-1967-3-1

JAMMU MUNICIPALITY Vs. FAQUIR HUSSAIN

Decided On March 06, 1967
JAMMU MUNICIPALITY Appellant
V/S
FAQUIR HUSSAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN appeal against the conviction of the respondent was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, mainly on two legal grounds: one that sanction to prosecute the respondent was not valid sanction and secondly that Rules 6 and 18 made under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) had not been complied with. The learned Sessions Judge has also come to the conclusion that the charge under Section 16 (1) of the Act was not proved beyond doubt against the respondent. Against the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 21st August 1965, this acquittal appeal has been preferred in this Court.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties in this case. We would first take up the points of law taken up in this case. The first proposition of law is that the prosecuting authority had not applied his mind to the facts of the case and then given sanction for prosecution. Under Section 20 (1) of the Act No prosecution for an offence under the Act shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of the Government or of a local authority or a person authorized in this behalf by the Government. . . .

(3.) IT is admitted before us that the Health Officer is the authority or the person authorized by the Government to launch prosecutions. The only argument that has prevailed with the learned Sessions fudge is that there is nothing on the record to show that the material facts constituting the offence were placed before the Health Officer, and the learned Sessions Judge has relied on AIR 1954 SC 637. That was n case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In that case the letter of sanction was signed by the P. A. of the sanctioning authority. The P. A. appeared as a witness to prove another document which purported to be the draft of a letter of which the letter sanctioning the prosecution was a copy. The draft contained the word 'approved' by the sanctioning authority. It was held that sanction was actually given though it was not in a proper form.