Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.
The Corporation of Calcutta, Appellant
Versus
Md. Omer Ali and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 1971,
D/- 20-8-1976.
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 - Section 16- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 - Section 20 – Constitution of India - Article 134 – Claim of compensation – Lead evidence – Quash of order - Respondents are proprietors of a grocery shop situate in city of Calcutta - Food Inspector took samples of turmeric powder sold by respondents in accordance with procedure prescribed by the rules made under the Act and sent one of samples to Public Analyst for analysis - It was found as a result of analysis that sample was heavily adulterated and was not fit for human consumption - Food Inspector on these facts filed a complaint against respondents in Court of Presidency Magistrate after obtaining the written consent of Health Officer which was endorsed at foot of complaint – Held, This view which we are taking is fully supported by a decision of this Court in State of Bombay - What happened in this case was that a complaint was filed against respondent by Food Inspector for selling adulterated milk after obtaining consent in writing of Chief Officer of Baroda Municipality who was authorized by Baroda Municipality to give written consent under Section 20 (1) of the Act - Respondent contended that written consent was of no avail since it did not mention the name of person in whose favor it was given and Food Inspector was, therefore not entitled to file complaint on basis of such written consent - This objection raised on behalf of respondent was negative and it was held by this Court that where a prosecution is launched on basis of a written consent granted by competent person or authority, it is not necessary to name complainant in written consent - Competent authority or person has to give his written consent to a specified prosecution and it is not necessary that name of complainant should be mentioned in written consent - In fact any person can file a complaint for an offence under the Act on the basis of written consent given by competent authority or person, because while giving written consent competent authority or person has to apply his mind not to question as to who should be authorized to file complaint, but to desirability and propriety of filing a particular prosecution and once that is done and the written consent is given, the requirement of Section 20 (1) is satisfied and thereafter any person can file such prosecution - This decision clearly shows that it is not necessary that even after written consent is given by competent authority or person prosecution must still be launched by any one of four categories of authorities or persons specified in Section 20 - Two conditions specified in Section 20 (1) are, as already pointed out above, in alternative and if either of them is satisfied, it is sufficient compliance with the requirement of the section - Since in present case Health Officer was authorized by Corporation of Calcutta to give written consent to the institution of prosecution for any offence under Act and the complaint of the Food Inspector was filed after obtaining the written consent of the Health Officer, it was in conformity with mandatory requirement of Section 20 (1) and learned Presidency Magistrate as well as High Court were in error in taking view that it was not properly filed - Appeal allowed
Judgment
BHAGWATI, J. :- This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta confirming an order passed by the Presidency Magistrate holding that a complaint under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta against the respondents was not competent and discharging the respondents. The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows.
2. The respondents are proprietors of a grocery shop situate in the city of Calcutta. The Food Inspector took samples of turmeric powder sold by the respondents in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the rules made under the Act and sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst for analysis. It was found, as a result of the analysis, that the sample was heavily adulterated and was not fit for human consumption. The Food Inspector on these facts, filed a complaint against the respondents in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate after obtaining the written consent of the Health Officer which was endorsed at the foot of the complaint. The complaint was made in the name of the Corporation of Calcutta through the Food Inspector. The complaint charged the respondents with the offence of adulteration punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Act. It appears that the trail proceeded for sometimes before the learned Presidency Magistrate, but before it came to an end a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the complaint was not filed by the proper authority as required by Section 20 (1) of the Act and was hence not maintainable. The ground on which the preliminary objection was based was that under Section 20 (1) a complaint could be filed only by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in that behalf by general or special order by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority while in the present case, the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector who was not a person authorised by the Central Government of the State Government or the Corporation of Calcutta and there was accordingly non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 20 (1). The prosecution relied on a resolution passed by the Corporation of Calcutta on 23rd December, 1966, by which an earlier resolution dated 23rd December 1955, authorising the Health Officer to institute a prosecution under the Act was modified and it was provided that "non-prosecution for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and the rules framed thereunder shall be instituted except with the written consent of the Health Officer who is authorised this behalf by the Corporation, a local authority, under Section 20 (1) of the said Act." It was contended on behalf of the prosecution that since the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector with the written consent of the Health Officer, who was authorised in that behalf by the Corporation of Calcutta under Section 20 (1), the complaint was in conformity with the requirement of Sec. 20 (1) and was hence maintainable. The learned Presidency Magistrate, however, rejected this contention of the prosecution and taking the view that what Section 20 (1) required was that the complaint must be filed by one of the four categories of persons there mentioned, namely, the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in that behalf, held that since the present complaint was filed by the Food Inspector and he was not a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government or the Corporation of Calcutta, the complaint could not be said to be properly filed and the Court was not competent to take cognizance of the offence on such complaint and in this view the learned Presidency Magistrate discharged the respondents. The Corporat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
