LexSHRI RANAJOY BOSE versus SHRI A.B. ROY AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
...
SHRJ RANAJOY BOSE
A
v.
SHRJ A.B. ROY AND ANR.
APRIL 5, 2002
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.]
B
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Sections 7, 16(!) (a){i) and
20(1)-0jfence-Consent for prosecution-Person authorised by State
Government by a Notification under Section 20(1) for granting corisent- C
Consent granted by District Health Officer-Dispute as to competence of the
authority granting consent-District Health Officer held as competent authority,
after interpretation of the Notification-Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.
In the instant case, consent under Section 20(1) of the Act for initiating
prosecution was granted by District Health Officer.
D
The question for consideration in the instant appeal was with regard to
competence of the authority for granting consent for prosecution under
Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
The question arose as a result of criminal proceeding against the E
appellant-accused under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act.
The appellant had applied for discharge which was dismissed by Magistrate
in proceedings under Section 245(2) and (3) Cr.P.C. and by High Court in
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the order granting F
consent for prosecution by District Health Officer was invalid because under
Notification issued by State Government under Section 20(1) of Food
Adulteration Act, Health Officer of Calcutta Corporation alone was
authorised for according such consent.
Corporation contended that in view of Column II of item 3 of G
Notification issued under Section 20(1) of Food Adulteration Act which reads
"the area comprised in every district or areas added to the Calcutta
Corporation", every District Health Officer was authorised under Notification
to exercise power for granting such consent; !md that if the .intention of the
State Government were to authorise only Health Officer of Calcutta H
955
956
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002] 2 S.C.R.
A Corporation, the entry in Column II of item 3 would be redundant.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The interpretation that each District Health Officer is
authorised to exercise the power under Section 20(1) to accord consent under
B Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in respect of
the respective District in his charge is more rational and in keeping with the
purpose of delegation of the power of the State Government (961-E, F)
1.2. If the intention of the authority was to vest the power to accord
consent for launching prosecution under Section 20(1) of the Food
C Adulteration Act, then it would have been so stated in column-II against item
No. 3 of the Notification, "the areas comprised in or areas added to the
Calcutta Corporation' instead of 'the areas comprised in every District of the
Calcutta Corporation'. If the entire Corporation was to be taken as one unit
for the purpose of vesting power under Section 20(1) of Food Adulteration
D Act then reference to every District was redundant. For ascertaining the
intention of the authority issuing the notification the entry should be read in
its entirety. Construing a portion of the notification which will result in
rendering the other portion redundant should be avoided. If the area of the
Corporation has been split up into different Districts for convenience of
administration, then it is reasonable to think that the State Government
E intended to delegate the power under Section 20(1) of the Food Adulteration
Act to the Health Onicers in-charge of the Districts. (961-B-D)
Rasiklal Saxena v. State of West Bengal Criminal Revision Nos., 1275-
1276of1982 Judgment dated 14.2.1983 of Calcutta High Court disapproved.
f
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
449 of 2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2000 of the Kolkata High
Court in Crl. R. No. 1978 of 1995.
G
Aloke Kr. Sengupta, Mrinal Kanti Manda!, Agnimitra Sinha and Parijat
Sinha for the Appellant.
Tap~ Chandra Ray and Bijan Kumar Ghosh for the Respondent No. l.
Atanu Saikia and A vjit Bhattacharjee for the Respondent No. 2.
H
RANAJOY BOSE v. A.B. ROY [D.P. MOHAPA TRA, J.]
957
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted.
This appeal filed by the accused is directed against the order passed by
the High Court at Calcutta dismissing the application filed by him under
SectioExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.