1. This appeal brought by the complainant by special leave under S.417 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, is against the acquittal of the three accused persons in the case of offences falling under clauses (a) and (d) of S.16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and punishable under clause (i) thereof.

2. The complaint was laid by a Food Inspector duly appointed under S.9 of the Act, and all Food Inspectors have been generally authorised by the State Government to institute prosecutions for offences under the Act. (See the notifications, P 15 and P 19). Nevertheless preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the accused on the score that the prosecution was not in accordance with S.20 (1) of the Act, that cognizance was therefore barred, and that, the trial by the learned magistrate was altogether without jurisdiction. It is said that S.20 (1) does not contemplate a general authorisation as in Ext. P. 19, but requires a special authorisation for each particular case, and the case reported in Food Inspector v. Arunachalam Chettiar, 1960 K.L.T. 515 =19601 K.L.R. 582, is cited in support of this proposition.

3. S 20 (1) of the Act runs as follows:

"No prosecu