R.S. VERMA, J.-—Shri Chhogalal alias Ghhoga was tried and found guilty for an offence u/s 7/17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act) by the learned Munsif & Judl. Magistrate, First Class, Gangapur, district Bhilwara, and war sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, and the same was transferred to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. Learned Addl Sessions Judge, up-held the conviction of Chhoga for the aforesaid offence and reduced the term of sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Magistrate to six months of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved, Chhoga alias Chhogalal has come in revision to this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the complaint had been signed by Prakash Chandra Singh, Food Inspector, Gangapur, but it had been presented in the Court of the learned trial Magistrate by Shri Devi Lal, Assistant Public Prosecutor. It was Prakash Chandra Singh, who had been authorised by the District Magistrate, Bhilwara, to launch prosecution against the revision petitioner as would appear from Ex. P/7. However, in this case, the complaint was lodged by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the prosecution was conducted by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, who was not authorised to lodge the complaint and conduct the prosecution and on this short ground, the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner should be set aside.

3. Learned P.P. Miss Sumitra Sankhla does not dispute the proposition that u/s 20(1) of the Act, only such person can lodge complaint, who has been authorised by the competent authority to do so. Prosecution instituted by an unauthorised person would be invalid and bad in accordance with law. But she submits that the complaint had been signed by Prakash Chandra Singh and the order sheet dated 8-3-77 of the trial Court goes to show that Prakash Chandra Singh, had instituted the complaint and, therefore, the prosecution in this case was not bad and the revision petitioner was rightly convicted. As against this, learned counsel for the revision petitioner points out that endorsement on the back of the complaint shows that the complaint had been instituted by Devi Lal, Assistant Public Prosecutor and not by Shri Prakash Chandra Singh. The com-plaint was lodged on 22-2-77 and as such, order sheet dated 8-3-77 does not help the prosecution in any way.

4. I have perused the record of the learned trial court and I find that the complaint had been lodged by Shri Devi Lal, Assistant Public Prosecutor on 22-2-77. On 22-2-77, the learned Magistrate directed the complaint papers to be checked and the matter was posted for 25-2-77. On 25-2-77, it was reported that the papers were complete. On 8-3-77, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid complaint, which had been presented in the Court by Devi Lal, Assistant Public Prosecutor. The order sheet dated 8-3-77 does not show that complaint had been presented by Prakash Chandra. It only mentions that Prakash Chandra had produced a complaint through Assistant Public Prosecutor. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that in this case, the complaint had been lodged and instituted by Devi Lal, Assistant Public Prosecutor, who was not a person authorised to lodge this complaint. Ex. P/7 is a consent issued u/s 20 of the Act by the District Magistrate and Collector, Bhilwara, and it does not authorise A.P.P. Devi Lal to lodge or institute the complaint. It only authorised Prakash Chandra to lodge and institute the complaint.

5. It has been held in a number of cases by this Court that only the Food Inspector can institute prosecution for an offence under t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document