( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed Under Section 417 (3) Cr. P. C. against an order of acquittal passed by sri A. C. Bansal, Additional Sessions Judge Lucknow, acquitting the opposite party who was convicted Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 37 of 1954), by a magistrate.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are as follows: Ram Autar, opposite party, was prosecuted by the Municipal Board, Lucknow, through its Medical Officer of Health for selling adulterated alsi oil. A. on 10-10-1955, to the Food Inspector Sri O. P, Mehrotra. The trial court found the charge proved against the opposite party and convicted him Under Section 7 of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act of 1954 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 600/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The opposite party went up in appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there was no proper prosecution within the meaning of Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and so the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the opposite party. He came to this conclusion because the State Government had not issued any notification appointing Sri O. P. Mehrotra as the Food Inspector or the Public Analyst, who had examined the sample, as the Public Analyst after the repeal of the U. P. Pure Food Act, 1950. He was of the opinion that the Food Inspectors and the Public Analysts appointed under the rules framed under the U. P. Pure Food Act, 1950, could not be deemed to be Food Inspectors and Public Analyst for the purposes of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Ac, 1054. He also came to the conclusion that ,the adulterated linseed oil did not come under the definition of food as defined in the Act of 1954. He, therefore, set aside. the order of conviction passed against the opposite party and acquired him.

( 3 ) THE Municipal Board feeling aggrieved by this order of acquittal presented this appeal and it was placed before a Bench of this Court.

( 4 ) WHEN the case was argued before us, the two points on the basis of which the order of conviction was set aside were not pressed before us by the counsel for the opposite party. In an earlier case decided by a Bench of this Court (Municipal Board, Lucknow v. Shyam beharicriminal Appeal No. 321 of 1956, AIR 1960 All 117 it was held that in view of Section 25 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1934, the appointments made under the old Act would be valid until fresh appointments were made. Reference was also made to the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which supported this in erpretation. It was perhaps in view of this decision that the counsel for the opposite party conceded the Sri O. P. Mehrotra was competent to func ion as a Food Inspector and . he Public Analyst, who examined the sample, was competent to give an opinion.

( 5 ) AS regards the second point whether linseed oil is food or not within the definition of food given in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the relevant rules and notifications were seen and it was conceded Hi at linseed oil was food. It is, therefore, clear that both the grounds taken up by the Additional Sessions Judge for setting aside the order of conviction were not maintainable and the order of acquittal could not be upheld.

( 6 ) A fresh argument was, however advanced by the counsel for the opposite party on the basis of section. 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Section. 20 runs as follows: 20 (1) 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 authorized in this behalf by the State Government or Local authority. The contention was that on the dale when the prosecution was launched the Municipal board, lucknow, was no a local authority within the meaning of Section 20 cite