The Administrator of the District Board was not a local authority within the meaning of section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and, therefore, had no authority to accord sanction for prosecution.

Medini Prasad Singh, J.

1. The revision application, Ishwar Lal Modi, was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment in addition to a fine of rs 1500/- (fifteen hundred) in default to undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954 (briefly the Act) for having adulterated Haldi. It appears that on 3rd october (sic) Om Prakash Gupta (P. W. I), the Food Inspector of Jhanja Block, purchased 600 grams of Haldi as a sample from the grocery shop of the applicant in village Dhamana within Police Station Jhanja in the district of monghyr. He divided the sample into three equal parts. He sent one part to the Public Analyst for chemical examination, gave another part to the accused and kept the third with himself. On analysis it was found that the sample of haldi was adulterated due to its containing lead chromate and excess of lead. The report of the Public Analyst is Ext.4, dated 13th November, 1975. After that, sanction was obtained on 27th December, 1975 from the Administrator-cum-Development Authority of Monghyr and thereafter the prosecution was instituted by the Food Inspector as having been authorised by the Administrator. Cognizance under section 16 (1) (a) of the Act was taken by the S. D. J. M. , jamui on 27th March, 1976. Thereafter the petitioner was placed upon trial and was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. The applicant denied guilt.

2. The point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that sanction was invalid because it was not granted by a competent authority and hence the prosecution launched in contravention of section 20 of the Act and as such the trial was illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, the conviction and sentence should be set aside. In my opinion the contention is sound. Prior to the amendment in 1976 the relevant portion of section 20 of the Act was as below :

"section 20. Cognizance and trial of offences.- (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 authority. "

The words "a local authority" occurring in section 20 (1) of the Act were omitted by the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act 1976 (No.34 of 1976) The effect of the amendment, therefore, is that the local authority shall no longer have power to institute complaint nor shall have any authority to authorise any person to institute complaints and the power now has been vested only in the Central Government or the State government or a person authorised by any of them. The amendment Act, 1976, came into force on 1.4.1976. In the present case the sanction to institute the case was given by the Administrator of the District Board. The question it whether the Administrator of the District Board had authority to give consent to the institution of the prosecution. On 6th June, 1956 all District Boards were declared as local authority within the meaning of section 2 (viii) of the Act by the State Government by a notification no. V/e2-04/56-165 dated the 6th June, 1956 in the official Gazette. By another notification No. S. O.128, dated 24th January, 1973 published in an issue of the Bihar Gazette on 27th january, 1973 all Chairman and Administrators of all District Boards were declared by the Governor of Bihar to be "local authorities". But in Suleman mian V/s. The State, 1975 BBCJ 352, it was held by a Division Bench of this court that neither the District Boards nor the administrators could be held to be "local authorities" within the meaning of the Act because they were not declared as such by any rules prescribed under the Act as required by law. By another notification no. S. C.1451, dated 24.11.1975 the State Government amended the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1958 in