RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) THE Medical Officer of Health, Brindaban, ordered prosecution of Janki Das for an offence under Section 4, U. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, on 10-3-1948. The accused was summoned on this complaint. The complaint was dismissed by Shri F. S Fantheme Magistrate first class, with order "no sanction under Section 12 Adult. Act. Case dismissed. "

( 2 ) A revision against this order was filed before the Additional District Magistrate of Mathura. He has referred the case to this Court with the recommendation that the order of the learned magistrate be quashed. In his Court a copy of the order of the Chairman Municipal Board, brindaban, was filed. This order, dated 2-2-1947, is :

"with reference to Section 12, Prevention of Adulteration Act read with Government notification Nos. 2193/xvi-829-44, dated 20-12-1944, Dr. Maharaj Singh is hereby autherised to institute cases under the said Act. "

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the accused had urged that the Chairman of the Municipal Board was not competent to autherise the Medical Officer of Health to institute cases under the Prevention of Adulteration Act. I do not agree with this.

( 4 ) SECTION 12, Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1912 (Act VI [6] of 1912) says:

"no prosecution under this Act shall be instituted without the order or consent in writing of the local autherity, or in the case of a municipal board or a cantonment autherity, of the person or persons autherised in this behalf by the said municipal board or cantonment autherity. "

The Chairman of the Municipal Board could exercise the power given to the Board under section 12 to autherise any other person to act on its behalf for prosecuting persons under this act in view of Section 50 (e), Municipalities Act which is:"the following powers, duties, and functions of a board may be exercised, and shall be performed or discharged, by the Chairman of the board and not otherwise, namely:. . . . (e) all other duties, powers and functions of a board with the exception of (i) where there is an executive officer, these vested in an executive officer, by Section 60 (and where there is medical officer of health, these vested in the medical officer of health by Section 60a), (ii) these specified in Col. 2 of Schedule I, and (iii) these delegated by the board under Section 112. "

Clauses (a) to (d) do not affect the question before us. If the power to autherise any person to act on behalf of the board for prosecuting persons under the Prevention of Adulteration Act is not given to an executive officer by Section 60 or to a medical officer of health by Section 60-A, the chairman of a municipal board could exercise this power in view of the above provision. It is argued for the applicant that this power vests in the executive officer and that the executive officer alone could have exercised it.

( 5 ) SECTION 60, Municipalities Act, mentions such powers of the board which are to be exercised by the executive officer and not otherwise. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this power of autherising a person to prosecute under the Prevention of Adulteration Act vests in the executive officer on account of the provisions of Section 60 (1) (d), which mentions the power conferred by the sections or sub-sections specified in col. 1 of Schedule II. Reference is then made to the entries in Schedule II with reference to Sections 24 and 314, Municipalities act. These two sections do not deal with this particular power. Section 244 deals with the seizure and removal of articles of food or drink unfit for the consumption of man at the time of inspection. Section 314 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any of the offences punishable under the Municipalities Act and which are mentioned in Schedule 8 or under any rule or bye-law, except on the complaint of, or upon information received from, the Board or some person autherised by the board by general or special order in this behalf. An offence under the Preven

Click Here to Read the rest of this document