( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the Municipal Board of Kanpur against the judgment of the Additional sessions Judge of Kanpur dated 23-11-1957, acquitting the respondent of offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appeal has been referred to this Bench as the Bench by which it was originally beard found difficulty in agreeing with the view taken in municipal Board, Lucknow v. Shyam Behari, AIR 1960 All 117 with regard to the effect of section 6 of the General Clauses Act.

( 2 ) THE respondent was a seller of ghee in Kanpur, and on 31-10-1955. two persons, Azizuddin siddiqi and Thakur Prasad, purporting to act as Food Inspectors purchased a sample of ghee from the respondent which was found on analysis to be adulterated. Two complaints thereafter were filed against the respondent by the Medical Officer of Health, Kanpur. The first of these complaints was filed on 2-12-1955, and alleged a contravention by the respondent of the provisions of Clause (iii) of Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in that the respondent, on 31-10-1955, had sold ghee without a licence as required by that Act the second complaint was filed on 29-2-1956 and alleged a contravention by the respondent of clause (i) of Section 7 of the same Act in that he had on the same date exposed for sale, and sold, adulterated ghee. The two cases were subsequently consolidated and the learned Magistrate by a judgment dated 1-10-1956, found both the charges to be established. He accordingly convicted the respondent and sentenced him to six months imprisonment and to pay a substantial fine. On appeal the respondent was acquitted of both charges by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground mat the Medical Officer of Health had no authority to file the complaints. It is against that order that this appeal has been filed.

( 3 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which came into force on 1-6-1955, provides that no prosecution for an offence under the Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in that behalf by the State Government or local authority. The Medical officer of Health, Kanpur, was so authorised by a Notification dated 16-12-1955, and published in the Official Gazette on the 24th December following. It is clear therefore; and is not disputed before us. that he had no authority on 3-12-1955 to institute the prosecution of the respondent for a contravention of Clause (iii) of Section 7 of the Act, and that the respondent was rightly acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of that offence.

( 4 ) IT appears that the attention of the learned Sessions Judge was not drawn to the notification published on 24-12-1955, and he was accordingly in error in holding that the Medical Officer of health had no authority to file the second complaint on 29-2-1956. The correctness of his order acquitting the respondent of the charge for contravening Clause (i) of Section 7 is however supported On the ground that there was no admissible evidence adduced before the learned magistrate to prove that the ghee which had been sold by the respondent on 31-10-1955, was adulterated.

( 5 ) THE sample of ghee which had been seized on that date was analysed by Dr. A. C. Chatterji. At the trial Dr. Chatterji did not appear but a report signed by him with regard to the result of his analysis was tendered in evidence by the prosecution and admitted by the learned Magistrate under Section 13 (5) of the Act. It is contended that that report was not admissible in evidence.

( 6 ) SECTION 8 of the Act makes provision for the appointment of Public Analysts by the State government, and Sub-section (5) of Section 13 provides that any document purporting to be a report signed by a Public Analyst (unless it has been superseded by a certificate, or by a document purporting to be a certificate, by the Director of the Ce