CHHANGANI, J.—This is a revision by the accused Asuram against the appellate order of the Sessions Judge, Balotra dated 28.7.1959 maintaining his conviction under sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) and sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default a further simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The facts giving rise to the revision may be briefly stated as follows:—

On 22.7.1959 S.S. Rathore, Food Inspector, Balotra purchased a sample of til-oil from the accused. The til-oil thus purchased was filled in three bottles each of which was properly sealed and labelled. Out of the three bottles, one was sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst for examination; the other was given out to the accused and the third was kept for being produced in Court and was ultimately so produced. On an examination by the Public Analyst the til-oil was found to be not of the prescribed standard of purity. The Food Inspector thereupon after obtaining the consent of the Assistant Director of Health Services, Jodhpur Division Jodhpur filed a complaint under sec. 16 of the Act and produced along with the complaint memorandum dated 31.10.1958 purporting to have been issued by the Assistant Director of Health Services consenting to the prosecution of the accused Asuram. Particulars of the offence were explained to the accused on his appearance in Court and his plea was recorded. He admitted that he was selling til-oil and that the Inspector purchased some til-oil as sample from him. He, however, alleged that he did not know that the til-oil was not of a standard purity and that it was adulterated. He further alleged that he had purchased that oil from Jodhpur Krishna Flour and Oil Mill in sealed tins and was selling in the condition in which he had purchased. It appears that he did not join any controversy over the question whether the sample which was sent for examination by the Public Analyst was not the one which was purchased from him and did not allege or suggest any tampering with the sample of til-oil purchased from him.

3. The prosecution examined two witnesses while three witnesses were produced in defence. The trial Magistrate, after the trial, found the accused guilty and recorded a conviction under sec. 16 of the Act. In an appeal by the accused a number of grounds were taken but the only point pressed before the appellate Judge was that the accused had not adulterated the til-oil at the shop and that he was selling the same in retail in the same condition in which he had purchased from his supplier. The appellate Court did not accept the contention of the accused and dismissed his appeal. The accused has filed the present revision.

4. Mr. Chand Mal has argued this revision at a great length. He has not only repeated the grounds taken before the appellate Court but has argued some additional grounds for setting aside conviction of the accused.

5. The one important ground which according to him goes to the root of the whole matter is that there was no proper prosecution of the accused inasmuch as there was no valid complaint for his prosecution. He submitted that sec. 20 of the Act requires that the complaint should be either by the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority or by some person with the written consent of the State Government or local authority, or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority. In the present case, he pointed out that assuming: that the Assistant Director of Health Services is a person authorised to file a complaint there is no proper written consent on his behalf authorising the Food Inspector Mr. Rathore to file the complaint. He invited my attention in the letter or memorandum dated 31.10.1958 purporting to have been issued by the Assistant Director of Health Services consenting to the prosecution of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document