The Commissioner of the Proddatur Municipality was not authorized to institute prosecutions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Central Act 37 of 1954), and the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaints.

SANJEEVA ROW NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THESE seven Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgments of the Judicial First Class Magistrate of Proddatur, before whom prosecutions had been instituted under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Central Act 37 of 1954), (which is hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of offences committed under Section 16 (1) of the said Act, separately in each case.

( 2 ) I shall briefly state only such facts as are necessary for the disposal of this matter in the view I have taken which is indicated below. The various accused in these prosecutions are dealers in foodgrains and importers of the food commodity known as Agra Toor Dhall. The Sanitary Inspector of the Municipality (who is also designated as Food Inspector by G. O. No. 1621 dated 29-9-1956) purchased two annas worth of dhall in each, split them into three shares, put them in three separate bottles, sealed them, delivered one to the accused in each case, sent one to the Public Analyst for analysis purposes and sent one bottle to the Magistrates Court. The Public Analyst who carried out the analysis of the grain came to the conclusion that they contained artificial water soluble yellow coloring matter derived from coal tar and hence branded the sample as mis-branded food within the meaning of the Act. Hence the prosecutions.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the accused (Respondents) in these appeals, Mr. Adavt Rama Rao, raised a preliminary objection that the prosecutions in these cases had not been instituted by the competent authority i. e. , the authority empowered to institute the proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. Section 20 of the Act is as follows : " (1) 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 : Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by a purchaser referred to in Section 12, if he produces in court a copy of the report of the Public analyst along with the complaint. (2) No Court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act. "

( 4 ) IT may be seen from this section that only the following persons or authorities can institute prosecution under the Act : (1) The State Government, (2) a person with the written consent of the State Government, (3) a local authority, (4) a person with the written consent of the local authority, (5) a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government, (6) a person authorised in this behalf by a local authority, and (7) by a purchaser referred to in Section 12 of the Act provided he is armed with a copy of the report of the Public Analyst and files it along with the complaint.

( 5 ) IN all the present cases, the prosecutions had been instituted by complaints in writing by the Commissioner of the Proddatur Municipality submitting complaints in writing to the Judicial First Class Magistrates Court, Proddatur, wherein he described himself as the complainant and he had also appended his signature at the end of the complaint on page 2 thereof. A reading of the complaints leaves no room for doubt, in my mind, that the complainant is the Commissioner of the Proddatur Municipality and that it was he that had instituted the prosecutions in these cases. It is unfortunate that an old form which was in vogue under the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act (III of 1918) had been adopted carrying out carelessly, amendments mutates mutandis to suit the requirements of the provisions of the Central Act 37 of 1954 e. g. , the whole of page 2 of the complaint which is headed "consent of the Local Executive Officer" which would have been relevant under Section 18 of the old Madras Act is completely out of place and irrelevant in a complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Cen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document