1. The prosecution in this case, for an offence under S.16 (1) (a) (i) read with S.7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, (the Act for short) was instituted by a person who claimed that he was competent to do so under sub-section (1) of S.20 of the Act. That sub-section, so far as is material, runs thus:

"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 complaint itself stated (and the complainant also gave evidence to the same effect as PW.1) that the State Government had, by a gazette notification dated the 4th May (sic. March) 1967 appointed the complainant as a Food Inspector under S.9 of the Act, and, by another notification of the same date under S.20 (1) authorised all Food Inspectors to institute prosecutions for offences under the Act. An issue of the official gazette - a gazette extraordinary of the 8th March, 1967- containing these notific