CHITTARANJAN DAS versus THE STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 18-09-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

656 
CIIlTIARANJAN DAS 
v. 
THE STATE OF ORISSA 
September 18, 1973. 
[H. R. KIIA!'INA AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] 
Food Ad11ltcratio11 Act (37 of 1954) s. 20(1)-Person authorised to give 
1rritten consent for prosecution for offence under the Act-Whether the authority 
should relate to specific offence or could be general. 
Section 20(1) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as it stood before its 
2mendment by Act 49 of 1964 provided that no prosecution for an offence under the 
Act shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of the State Govern· 
ment or &. lucal authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State 
Government or a local authority. 
On the written consent of the Superintendent 
of Police, Vigilance, who was authorised to give written consent for instituting 
prosecutions for offences, under the Act, the appellant was prosecuted and con-
victed for an offence under s. 16(1) (a) of the Act It was contended on his be-
half that while it was permissible under the section, after its amendment by Act 
49 of 1964, to issue such general notification authorising a person to give written 
consent, under the section as it stood before the amendment, the authority 
should be in respect of a specified individual offence. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : There is nothing in the language of the section which makes it 
imperative to specify a particular oifence in the order authorising a person to give 
consent to the institution of prosecution. The legislature had a two fold object in 
enacting s. 20(1-)(a) to prevent institution of prosecutions for offences under the 
Act except with the written consent of the authorities mentioned in the section, 
and (b) to relieve the State Government or local authority of the necessity of 
applying its mind and dealing with each individual case of prosecution under the 
Act. In case the authority conferred by the State Government or local authority 
could not be general but had to relate to an individual offence the very purpose 
of the section would be defeated. for then. it would become necessary for the 
State Government or local authority first to authorise a person to give written con-
sent in respect of an individual case and thereafter for the person authorised to 
give written consent, so that what could be done in one step by the State Govern-
ment or local authority would have to be done in two steps. 
The words 'in this behalf' indicate that the authority conferred by the State 
Government or local authority upon a person should relate to the giving ·of 
\Vritten consent for the institution of prosecution for offences under the Act 
and not that the authority conferred must relate to some specified individual 
offence. The amended sectic1-
also contains those words, and must obviously 
carry the same meaning. If .he interpretation sought to be placed upon these 
\VOr<ls is accepted no general authority can be conferred even under.s. 20(1) 
even as amended, and the words 'by general or special order' in the amended 
section would become meaningless and lose all significance. 
The amendment 
had only made more. clear what was already contemplated by the section. 
[659G--661B] 
Corporation of Madras v. Arumagham, A.I.R. 1966. Madras 194, Laxma11 
Sitaram Pai & Anr. v. The State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1967 Mysore 33 and Public 
Prosecutor v. Tilatha Rao & Ors., A.I.R. 1968 A.P. 17, approved. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 
1970. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 3rd 
December, 1969 of the Orissa High Court in Criminal Revision No. 
325 of 67. 
N. C. Sikri, for the appellant. 
S. Chatterjee and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. 
A 
, 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
·-
11 
CHITTRANJAN DAS v. ORISSA (Khanna, !.) 
657 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Kl!ANNA, 
J. 
Chittaranjan Das appellant was 
convicted by 
Magistrate First Class Cuttack under section 16(1)(a) of the Pre· 
vention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37 of 1954) (herein-
after referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 
or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period 
of six weeks. Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Addi-
tional Sessions Judge Cuttack. The appellant then went up in revision 
to the High Court but his revision petition too was dismissed by the 
Orissa High Court. The appellan

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.