The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with procedural requirements under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, including the need for proper sanction for prosecution, compliance with witness requirements, and issuing notice as required by S.11.

1. This appeal arises out of a prosecution instituted under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 37 of 1954). The Food Inspector of the Trivandrum Corporation started the prosecution by filing a complaint against the two accused who are the respondents in this appeal. The prosecution case is that the shop, bearing TC No. 698 at Karamana within the Corporation limits, belongs to the first accused and the main business carried on in that shop is the sale of oils and other food stuffs. The second accused is said to be an employee under the first accused, and it was the second accused who was in charge of the sales conducted in the shop. The allegation against the accused is that they used to sell adulterated oil in the shop. The second accused is stated to have been selling adulterated oil for and on behalf of the first accused. On 30-7-1957 Pw.1, the Food Inspector of the Corporation, went to this shop and purchased 12 ozs. of gingilly oil from the accused and after issuing the necessary notice to the accused, sent a portion of it to the Public Analyst. As a result of the analysis, it was found that the oil which was sold as gingilly oil contained a high percentage of groundnut oil and other fatty acid's far above the sanctioned limit. The accused were accordingly prosecuted for the offence punishable under S.16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, read with S.7 of the same Act. It was also alleged that for a similar offence, these accused had been convicted and sentenced on a prior occasion. The learned First Class Magistrate who tried the case, found that all the allegations against them have been made out and accordingly convicted them under clause (1) (g) (ii) of S.16 and sentenced each of the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, each accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 6 months. On appeal by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution was vitiated by certain serious illegalities and accordingly allowed the appeal. The conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused were acquitted. It is against that order of acquittal that the present appeal has been filed by the complainant Pw.1 after obtaining special leave under S.417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. To sustain a prosecution initiated by a public authority for an offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it is essential that the condition laid down by S.20 of the Act must be satisfied. S.20 states that "No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority". Ext. P4 is the sanction produced by Pw.1 to satisfy the requirements of S.20. Ext. P4 is a general authority conferred by the Commissioner of the Corporation on Pw.1, the Food Inspector, to prosecute all persons who may be found to have been committed offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act before the Corporation First Class Magistrate of Trivandrum. Under S.20, the sanction required is the sanction of the State Government or the local authority or from a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority. In the present case it has not been satisfactorily proved that the Commissioner of the Corporation had been authorised by the State Government or the local authority to issue the necessary sanction for prosecuting offenders under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In the absence of such proof, Ext. P4 cannot be accepted as a proper and valid sanction or authority as required by S.20 of the Act. Even apart from this defect about the sanction evidenced by Ext. P4, there is yet another serious defect about Ext. P4. The authority purported to be conferred by Ext. P4 is couched