Narain, J.

For an offence under section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter to be referred to as the “Act”, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. This was affirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge of Monghyr. The present revision application is directed against the conviction and sentence as set out above.

2. The petitioner has a grocery shop in village Pursottampur Katoria, within police Station Mufassil, district Monghyr. On the 11th January, 1967, Bishwanath Prasad (P.W. 1), Food Inspector, purchased sample of Haldi from the shop of the petitioner after observing due formalities and sent the same to the Public Analyst for examination and report. The Public Analyst found 4.0 parts per million of lead in the sample of Haldi sent to him and in his opinion the sample was adulterated due to its containing excess of lead. On this report, the Administrator, District Board, Monghyr, by his order dated the 8th March 1967 (Ext. 3/1) sanctioned prosecution, and on the 1st July, 1967, Bishwanath Prasad (P.W.1), the Food Inspector, filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr Sadar, who took cognizance.

3. Mr. Debendra Narain Sinha appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the order of conviction recorded against the petitioner cannot be sustained, in as much as the sanction was not valid and the documents produced to prove this, are not admissible in evidence and were brought on record after the close of argument, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to meet them. Learned Counsel conceded that there was an excess of lead, but according to him, the excess was too small, being only 1.5 parts per million, and as such negligible to be detected by the petitioner who himself purchased these articles and sold them.

4. Section 20 lays down, inter alia, that no prosecution for an offence under the Act shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of a local authority. It has been argued that there was no legal evidence to show that the District Board, or for the matter of that, the Administrator thereof, was a local authority. In order to prove the validity of the prosecution, reliance was placed upon three Gazette notification Exts. 5, 6 and 7 Ext. 5 is a true copy of an extract from the Bihar Gazette dated the 15th March 1958, under which all qualified Health Inspectors of District Boards have been appointed Food Inspector for the purpose of the Act. Ext. 6 is the true copy of an extract from the Bihar Gazette dated the 30 July, 1965, by which the District Development Officer, Monghyr, was appointed to perform the powers, functions and duties conferred on the Monghyr District Board. Ext. 7 is the true copy of an extract from the Bihar Gazette dated the 6th June, 1956, by which under sub clause (2) of clause (VIII) of section 2 of the Act, all District Boards in the State of Bihar, which have been declared to be local areas under clause (vii) of section 2 of the Act, have been prescribed to be local authorities within their respective jurisdictions for the purposes of the Act.

5. The argument advanced by Mr. Debendra Narain Sinha is that the District Board cannot be deemed to be a local authority in as much as the notification Ext. 7 does not fulfill the requirements of law, and that the aforesaid documents which are extracts from the Bihar Gazette and have been certified to be true copies, are not admissible in evidence. He has further argued that under Ext. 6, it was the District Development Officer who had been appointed to exercise and perform the powers, functions and duties of the Monghyr District Board, but in the present case the Food Inspector was authorised by the Administrator and there is nothing on the record to show that the District Development Officer and th