JUDGMENT - Naik, J.

(1) This is an appeal by the State from an order of acquittal. The accused is a dealer in edible oil and carries on his business in shop No.128, situate at Moraji Peth, Sholapur, N.R. Deshpande, who is the Food Inspector appointed by the Municipal Borough of Sholapur, visited his shop on 18-12-63 and called upon the accused to sell him 300 ml. of coconut oil for the purpose of analysis. Accordingly, the accused sell him the said quantity. The Food Inspector paid him the price, which was Rs.1.12 nP. and the accused passed a receipt in respect of the same. The Food Inspector then divided the oil in three parts, handed over one part to the accused and retained two parts with himself. The accused passed a receipt in respect of having received the bottle given by the Good Inspector to him. The Food Inspector then sent one sample bottle to the Public Analyst for the purpose of analysis. The report of the Public Analyst dated 6th March 1963 is at Ex. 13. The Analyst found that the coconut oil contained 45.3% of mineral oil and that the same did not conform to the standard of coconut oil prescribed under the Rules. The Sholapur Municipal Borough had passed a resolution as far back as 21-3-59 delegating power to the Standing Committee to given sanction for the prosecutions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Accordingly on 28-3-63 the Standing Committee passed a resolution (Ex. 14) authorising the Chief Food Inspector to lodge the complaint against the accused. On 15-4-63 T.B. Deshpande, the Chief Food Inspector lodged a complaint against the accused under S. r6 (I) (a) (I) of the Act.

(2) The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. According to him, he had purchased a sealed tin of coconut oil from one Kishanlal Sagar of Sholapur and that the oil was meant for application to hair. He suggested that he was not aware as to whether the oil inside the tin was adulterated or not. He further contended that no panch was present at the time of purchase of the oil by the Food Inspector. He also denied that the bottle were sealed in his presence. He admitted having signed the receipt, but, according to him, the receipt was signed by him at the suggestion of the Food Inspector. The accused went so far as to say that he had shown the bills (Exh. 3A) to the Food Inspector and told him that the oil was meant for application to hair.

(3) It appears that in the course of the argument, it was contended on behalf of the defence that T.B. Deshpande, the Chief Food Inspector, was not properly authorised to lodge the complaint and, therefore, the court was not competent to take cognizance of the offence.

(4) The trying Magistrate held in favour of the prosecution on all the points except the point relating to proper authorisation for lodging the complaint. He held that the Standing Committee had no power to delegate the authority, which was delegated to it by the General Body of the Municipal Borough. He also held that since the name of the Chief Food Inspector was not mentioned in the resolution, the authorisation was not valid and it was not open to T.B. Deshpande to lodge the complaint. Consequently, he acquitted the accused. It is against that decision that the State has preferred the present appeal.

(5) The appeal was heard by our learned brother, Tambe J. in the first instance and he has referred the appeal to the Division Bench on the question as to whether it is incumbent on the Prosecution to positively establish that the alleged adulterated article was sold as an article of food under the Act of 1954.

(6) Before dealing with the question referred to the Division Bench by our learned brother, Tambe J., it would be convenient to dispose of the question about the validity of the sanction or which the trial Magistrate has recorded a finding against the prosecution. Section 20 of the Act provides : (material part quoted) -

"(I) No Prosecution for an offence under thus Act shall be institu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document