GOPAL DAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On Jan. 28, 1977 PW-1 Sri Hari Dutta Sharma, Food Inspector, Bharatpur, purchased the sample 'pedas' prepared with Mawa, from the petitioner at his shop, M/S Radha Bhallabh Gopal Dass, Chobarja Bazar, Bharatpur. On analysis of the sample 'Pedas', the Public Analyst reported them adulterated for their containing non-permitted metanil yellow and basic dye(yellow shade,) food colour. On the complaint of the Food Inspector, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur (CJM) tried the petitioner for an offence punishable Under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954(the Act) and found him guilty thereof. He, therefore, convicted the petitioner of the same and sentenced him to one year RI and fine of Rs. 2,000.00. In appeal, the learned special Judge, Bharatpur confirmed the order of the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Hence this revision application under Sec. 397 Code Criminal Procedure before this court.

(2.) Mr. R. N. Khandelwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the specified authority granted the sanction in this case without aoplying his mind to the facts of the case, hence the very foundation of the prosecution of the petitioner was infirm. Mr. Khandelwal supported his argument on the point with a good number of case law from this court as well as other courts but in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court in the case of Dhian Singh Vs. Municipal Board Saharanpur, 1973 F.A.C. 404 , I do not think that the cases taking a contrary view should be discussed.

(3.) In the case of Dhian Singh (Supra) a Food Inspector, with written consent of the Municipal Board, Saharanpur, had filed a complaint Under section 7/16 of the Act against the accused. The order of acquittal of the accused by the trial court was reversed by the High Court. In appeal to the Supreme Court by the accused the maintainability of the very complaint filed by the Food Inspector was challenged on the grounds, interalia, that the authority authorising the prosecution did not apply its mind to the facts of the case before granting its written consent Under section 20 of the Act. Their lordships settled down the controversy on this and other allied issues in para 5 of the report in the following manner: