LexDHIAN SINGH versus MUNICIPAL BOARD, SAHARANPUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
736
DHIAN SINGH
v.
MUNICIPAL BOARD, SAHARANPUR
July 31, 1969
[S. M. SIKR!, G. K. MITTER AND K. S. f{EGDF., JJ.J
Pm·entio11 of Food Ad11/tero1ion Ace (37 of 1954), s. W-Scope of-
Con1plain1 signed by Food J11spector but Municipc/ Board shown a.r com-
p/oinan1-Appea/ by Municipal Board under s. 417(3) Codt <>/Criminal
Procedure (Ace 5 of 1898)-Maintainabiliry not q11es1ioned
in
High
Court-If question can be raised in tlze Supreme Court-Public Analyst,
report of-When cnn farn1 basis of convicriorz.
On a report of the Public Analyst that the coloured sweets sold by the
appellant ""·ere adulterated a complaint \\'as filed before the Magistrate
under s. 7, read with s. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
The trial court acquillcd the appellant.
Jn appeal by the ;\1uniC'ipal Board
under s . .i I 7( 3). Code of Criminal P1ocedure, the High Court convicted
the appellant.
The appellant did not raise any objection as to tbe main-
tainabiJilv of the complaint or of .the llppcaJ, eirher in the trial court or
in the High Court before the appeal v:as <lisposcd of, on the ground that
the i\(unicip:1I BoabJ \1.·as shown as the complainant and the complaint
\\·as signed hy its Food Inspector.
Jn :ippeal to this Court, it \vas con-
tended that : (i) the oppeal filed by the Municipal Board in the High
Court \1.·:is not maintainahlc in Jaw as 1hc con1pl:_:nr had been instituted
hy the Food Inspector and nor by the ~funicipal Hoard; (ii) a permission
under s. ::!O of the Act v.·as a condition precedent for validly instituting a
complaint and the fulfilment of that condition had lo be satisfactorily
proved heron~ the court could exercise jurisdiction to trv the case; and
(iii) the appellant could not have been convicled on the strength of the
cenificatc of the Public Analyst.
HELD: Dismissing the appeal,
(i) Under s. 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it wa•
con1pctent for the ~[unicipal Board to authorise the Foo:! Inspector to file
the complaint. If the complaint had been filed by the Food
Inspector
on the outhority of the Board the complaint must he held to have been
instituted bv the Board itself.
The question whether the Food Inspector
\rJc; so authorised is J question of fact. This was never put into issue and
hoth the c<"turls hclo\\· and rhe parties before them proceeded on the basis
that 1he Municipal Board 'v.·as the complainant and the Food Inspector
filed the complaint on its behalf. The appellant could not, therefore, be
permitled to take uo the contention for the first time after the appeal was
disposed of in the High Court. [741 ,/\-CJ
K. C. AgRnrwal v. Delh(Adnzinirtration, Cr. A. No. 100 of 1966, dt.
27-5-1969, referred to.
' " .
.
(ii) There is rio -·analogy bctweeri the section and th05e provisions
requiring sanciion for the institution of certain criminal proceedings. Under
the section. no question of a11pJying one's mind to the facts of the case
hefore the institution of complaint arises as the authoritv under the section
can be conferred long before a particular offence has t.iken place. It is a
conferment of an authority to institute a particular case or even a class of
ca<es. [741 G)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
DHIAN SINGH v. MUNICIPAL BOARD (Hegde, J.)
7 37
Gokal Chand Dw.drkadas v. The King, 75 I.A. 30 and Madan Mohan
Singh v. State of U.P, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 736, held inapplicable.
(iii) It is not necessary that the repol't of the Public Analyst should
contain the mode or 'particulars of analysis or the test applied.
But it
should contain the result of analysis, namely, data from which it can be
inferred whether the- article of food was or y_ras not adulterated. In the
present case, the ·repmt of analyst did contain the data on the basis of
which the analyst qaine to his conclusion. [742 C-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
122 cf 1967. ·'
Appeal by speffal leave from the judgment and order dated
April 18, 1966 of'the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 1642 of 1964.
R. K. Gare, S. C. Agarwal, Sumitra Chakravarty and Uma
Dutt, tor the app~l!ant.
0. P. Rana, !for .. respondent No. 2.
.
.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered' by
Hegde J.
Two· contentions advanced in this appeal by special
leave are (1) tl1at the appeal filed by the Municipal Board, Saha-
ranpur before th,e High Court of Allahabad under s. 417(3) of
the Criminal Procedure Code was not maintainableExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.