Judgment

P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY,J:- This appeal is by certificate under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Manager of Sree Krishna Oil Mills, Midnapore, the proprietor of which was one Srilal Bajoria. Both these persons were tried jointly for an offence under S. 7(1)/16 (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The proprietor Srilal Bajoria was acquitted but the appellant was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. The offence in respect of which the appellant was charged was that he being the Manager of the Oil Mills for manufacturing mustard oil was responsible for the adulteration. On July 10, 1964, at about 11 A. M. the appellant was going in a truck carrying 100 tins of mustard oil and was stopped by the Food Inspector, Kharagpore Municipality. On being questioned by the Food Inspector the appellant informed him that the oil which he was carrying was manufactured at Sree Krishna Oil Mills. Midnapore. As the Food Inspector suspected that this oil may have been adulterated, he took three samples according to the provisions of the Act. He sent one sample to the Public Analyst - one he kept with himself and the third he gave to the appellant. The Public Analyst on examining the sample sent to him reported on August 5, 1964, that Saponification value of the oil was 181.6, Iodine value 107.2 and B. R. reading at 400C was 60.1 and was of the opinion that the sample of mustard oil was adulterated - vide Ext. 5. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution from the Chairman of the Municipality, the appellant was prosecuted before the Magistrate, Ist Class, Midnapore, He pleaded not guilty but on the evidence and the report of the Public Analyst he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. An appeal to the Sessions Judge was without success. Thereafter the appellant filed a revision before the High Court and that was also dismissed.

2. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant has urged similar points as were urged before the High Court, namely, (i) that the trial was vitiated for want of valid and legal sanction; (ii) that the report of the Public Analyst was not a proper report in law and cannot form the basis of legal conviction; and (iii) that the Public Analyst s report was bad and incomplete for failure of carry out all the tests required under A. 17.06 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, and also for failure to disclose the data in the report.

3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the sanction to prosecute the appellant was given by the Chairman of Kharagpore Municipality - Shri K. C. Chaki - on August 19, 1964. This sanction did not show (a) that the Chairman had applied his mind before giving the sanction; (b) that it was valid as it was not granted by the Local Authority, namely, the Municipality; and (c) that since the resolution of Municipality had authorised the new Chairman cannot avail himself of that authorisation as by that time there were fresh elections and a new Chairman was elected. Accordingly it is submitted that sanction given by Mr. Chaki was not a proper sanction.

4. It appears to us that the challenge to the validity of the sanction is misconceived. As pointed out by the High Court, S. 51 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, enumerates the powers of the Chairman as under:

"Save as hereinafter provided, the Chairman shall for the transaction of the business connected with this Act or for the purpose of making any order authorised thereby, exercise all the powers vested by this Act in the Commissioner and whereby any other law power is vested in the Commissioners for any purpose, the Chairman may transact any business or make any order authorised by that law in the exercise of that power, unless it is otherwise expressly provided in that law".

Section 20 of the Act provides for sanction of the Local Authority for prosecutions under the Act which includes a Municipality. Reading these two provisions together the Chairman of a