JUDGMENT - (1) Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 1957 has been preferred by the State of Bombay against the order pased by the learned Sessions Judge of Baroda in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1957 on his file.

(2) The case of the prosecution was that the respondent, who was t he accused in the trial Court, owned a milk shop within the Municipal limits of the City of Baroda. The Food Inspector of the Baroda Municipality visited the milk shop of the accused on 9-7-1956 at about 8-30 a.m and purchased 1 1/2 lb. of milk for analysis, after giving him the necessary notice in that behalf, as required by the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. The quantity of the milk purchased by the Inspector was filled in three bottles in equal parts, and the bottles were duly closed, saled and labelled in the presence of some panchas. One bottle was given into the possession of the accused and one was sent to the public analyst for analysis of its contents. On 30-7-1956 the public analyst sent a report that the milk was adulterated and it contained 2.7 per cent. fat and 4.1 S.N.F. The Food Inspector thereafter filed the complaint, out of which the present proceedings arise, against the accused, after taking the necessary consent in writing from the Chief Officer, who was empowered by the Municipality in that behalf. The Chief Officer accorded consent for instituting the prosecution. The complaint was that the accused had committed an offence under S. 16 read with S. 7 of the Preventin of Food Adulteration Act.

(3) The learned Special Magistrate, First Class was inclined to hold that the accused was guilty of the offence under S. 16(1)(a) read with S. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300, in default, to three months rigorous imprisonment under S. 245, Criminal Procedure Code.

(4) Thereafter the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1957 in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Baroda. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the Food Inspector was not competent to institute the prosecution under S. 20 of the Act, and held that the prosecution instituted against the accused was without jurisdiction, and accordingly set aside the order of conviction and sentence, and ordered the accused tobe discharged. There was no order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

(5) Against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the State preferred the present appeal No. 1159 of 1957. As there is no order of acqittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appeal which has been preferred by the State would not be competent under S. 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We would, therefore, convert this appeal into a Criminal Revision Application, and consider the point has been raised in it on behalf of the State.

(6) The learned Sessions Judge stated that in view of the provisions of S. 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, it ws not competent to the Food Inspector to institute the prosecution against the accused. He was of the view that the Food Inspector was not an authority, nor an officer mentioned in that section, competent by himself to institute the prosecution. Further, he held that the clause "or with the written consent of" qualified only the words that immeditely followed, namely, "the State Government", and therefore it was only with the written consent of the State Government that a prosecution could be instituted by any person under provisions of S. 20.

(7) In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the State in this revisional Application, it would be necessary to set out the terms of S. 20 of the Act, Section 20 (1) reads as follows:

"No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the wriiten consent of, the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or local authority."

The construction whch has been put by the lear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document