BIRDHI CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question requiring determination in this revision is whether the prosecution in the case was instituted in accordance with the provisions of sec. 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act.)

(2.) SEC. 20 of the Act requires that no prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority. The written consent, therefore, of the authorities mentioned in this section is a pre-requisite to the institution of a prosecution under the Act. The authorities, which are competent to give consent are: - (a) the State Government, (b) the local authority, (c) a person to whom this power is delegated by the State Government or the local authority. In the present case, the written consent was given by the Chairman, Municipal Board, Kota. It is not the prosecution case that the Chairman had been authorised by the Municipal Board to give consent for the institution of prosecutions under the Act. The contention of the learned counsel is that the Chairman, unless he is authorised in that behalf, had no authority to give consent for the institution of prosecution. According to the learned counsel, it is the person authorised in that behalf by the local authority who could have given consent for prosecuting the accused.