Judgment

AYYANGAR, J. : This appeal by special leave of this Court raises a very short point regarding the construction of S. 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954).

2. The respondent owned a milk shop within the Municipal limits of the city of Baroda. The Food Inspector of the Municipality visited the shop on July 9, 1956, and purchased milk for analysis. This was sent to the Public Analyst and when his report was to the effect that the sample was adulterated, the Inspector applied to the Chief Officer, Borough Municipality, Borada for the latter s consent, for instituting criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (referred to hereafter as the Act) against the respondent. A consent in writing to the initiation of this prosecution was given by the Chief Officer and thereafter the complaint out of which this appeal arises was instituted charging the respondent with an offence under S. 16 read with S. 7 of the Act for selling adulterated food.

3. The case was tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baroda. Besides denying his guilt, the accused raised various technical objections, the principal of which was that the prosecution was incompetent because of non-compliance with the terms of S. 20(1) of the Act. This provision omitting the proviso to which it is unnecessary to refer, runs :

"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."

4. The Magistrate overruled these objections and holding the accused guilty of the offence charged sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300 and in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months. Dealing with the objection based on S. 20(1) of the Act with which alone we are concerned, the learned Magistrate said :

"In the present case Baroda Municipal Borough is the local authority and it has authorized the Chief Officer and the health officer of the Municipality to grant sanction to institute proceedings under this Act by its resolution No. 222 dated May 7, 1956, the Chief Officer has given consent in writing to lodge this complaint against the present accused under the Act on October 13, 1956. The said consent in writing is on record at Ex. 10/7 and the copy of the Resolution of the Municipality empowering the Chief Officer and the health officer is also on record at Ex. 18/8. Thus in the present case there is a valid consent in writing given by the Chief Officer who has been duly authorised in this behalf by the Baroda Municipal Borough, to institute proceeding against the present accused under the Act . . . . . . . The Food Inspector can lodge the complaints under the Act if consent in writing is given by a local authority or a person empowered in this behalf by the local authority. The food inspector had in the present case submitted all the papers to the Chief Officer who has been invested with the powers by the Municipality to give consent in order to seek his necessary consent in writing before lodging the complaint against the present accused. And after going through the said papers the Chief Officer had duly given consent to him to lodge this complaint. It is true that the consent does not bear the name of the food inspector but it impliedly follows that the consent was given by the Chief Officer to the person viz., the complainant food inspector who sought the permission and none else."

5. Against his conviction and sentence the respondent filed an appeal to the Court of the Sessions Judge at Baroda. The appellate Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence on the ground that the Food Inspector was not competent to institute the prosecution under S. 20(1) of the Act. Relying on the decision of a single Judge of the Madras High Court in Cannanore Milk Supply Co-operative Society, In re, 1956-2 Mad LJ 465, the learne