The Administrator of a superseded Municipal Corporation is a "local authority" within the meaning of section 2(viii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and has the authority to grant authorization for prosecution under the Act.

Headnote:
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT - AUTHORISATION TO PROSECUTE - LOCAL AUTHORITY - ADMINISTRATOR OF SUPERSEDED MUNICIPALITY - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897, SECTIONS 2(31), 18.
Fact of the Case:

Two accused, a servant and his employer, were charged with selling adulterated oil under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The prosecution was authorized by the Administrator of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, which had been superseded under the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. The accused challenged the validity of the authorization, arguing that only the Municipal Corporation itself could grant such authorization.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Administrator of the superseded Municipal Corporation was a "local authority" within the meaning of section 2(viii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and, therefore, had the authority to grant the authorization for prosecution. The court relied on the definition of "local authority" in section 2(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which includes "a municipal committee, district board, body of port commissioners or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund." The court also noted that the Administrator was a "corporation sole" under section 409(2) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act and could "sue and be sued in the name of 'The Administrator of the City'."
Issues: 1. Whether the Administrator of a superseded Municipal Corporation is a "local authority" within the meaning of section 2(viii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954? 2. Whether the Administrator has the authority to grant authorization for prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term "local authority" in section 2(viii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in light of the definition provided in section 2(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. According to this definition, a "local authority" includes "a municipal committee, district board, body of port commissioners or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund." The court found that the Administrator of the superseded Municipal Corporation fit this definition, as he was entrusted by the Government with the control and management of the municipal fund. 2. The court also considered the provisions of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, which governs the supersession of Municipal Corporations. Section 409(2) of the Act provides that the Administrator of a superseded Municipal Corporation is a "corporation sole" and can "sue and be sued in the name of 'The Administrator of the City'." The court interpreted this provision as indicating that the Administrator has the same powers and duties as the Municipal Corporation itself, including the authority to grant authorization for prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the accused's application, holding that the Administrator of the superseded Municipal Corporation had the authority to grant the authorization for prosecution and that the prosecution was, therefore, valid.

JUDGMENT -- The two accused who are aggrieved by an order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Corporation), Nagpur and whose order is confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, have come here in revision.

2. Accused No. 1 is a servant of accused No.2. They are being prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 7 (i) read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Food Adulteration Act"). It is alleged that they were stocking as well as selling adulterated oil on 19-2-1968. The complaint was filed by the Municipal Secretary against the two accused on 4-10-1968. It is the case of the accused that the Nagpur Corporation had been superseded under section 408 (1) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 in 1965 and that an Administrator had been appointed. At the time when this offence is alleged to have been committed the Administrator was in charge of the Administration of the City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The case of the accused is that the Administrators authority to the Municipal Secretary to prosecute the accused is neither valid nor proper. According to them it is only the Municipal Corporation that could permit the Municipal Secretary to prosecute the accused. It is, therefore, their plea that the Administrator cannot authorise the Municipal Secretary to prosecute the case. On the other hand the contention of the Corporation of the City of Nagpur is that that authorisation to the Municipal Secretary by the Administrator is quite legal and proper under the Food Adulteration Act.

3. For the purposes of understanding the contention of the learned Advocate for the accused it is better to recite section 20 of the Food Adulteration Act. Section 20 of the Food Adulteration Act is as follows:

"20. (1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government or a local a 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 or 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."

It is, therefore, clear from section 20 that a prosecution under the Food Adulteration Act has to be instituted only with the written consent of a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order by a local authority. We are not much concerned here with the consent either of the Central Government or the State Government. Section 2 (viii) of the Food Adulteration Act defines "local authority" as follows:--

"local authority" means in the case of--

(1) A local area which is--

(a) a municipality, the municipal board or municipal corporation; (b) a cantonment, the cantonment authority;

(2) any other local area, such authority as may be prescribed by the Central Government or the State Government under this Act."

The "local authority" is either a municipality, a cantonment or any other notified area. Reading, therefore, section 20 along with section 2 (viii) of the Food Adulteration Act, it is plain that no prosecution for an Offence under the Act could be instituted except with the written consent of the local authority. The local authority may be a municipality or a cantonment or a notified area.

4. It is now the contention of the learned Advocate for the applicants that the prosecution could be, therefore, only with the consent of the local authority of Nagpur. It is argued by him that the "Municipal Corporation" is the local authority and, therefore, it is only the "Municipal Corporation", as contemplated in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document