SATISH CHANDRA, J. :- This revision along with its companion revisions have been heard together as they raise some common questions.

2. The petitioners in these revisions have been convicted under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The main question raised in these petitions is that the officer who signed the complaint was not competent to do so and as such the prosecution based on such a complaint was not maintainable.

3. To appreciate the contention raised, it will be feasible to state few relevant facts. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, makes a specific provision with respect to cognizance and trial of the offences under that Act. The relevant and material provisions of Section 20 of this Act are that 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 authorised in this behalf by the State Government or the local authority.

4. Thus cognizance and trial of the offences under this Act can be had only when the prosecution is instituted by one or the other mentioned authorities. The State Government or a local