SURESH H. RAJPUT ETC. ETC. versus BHARTIBEN PRAVIN BHAI SONI AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 28-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SURESH H. RAJPUT ETC. ETC. 
v. 
BHARTIBEN PRA VIN BHAI SONI AND ORS. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 28, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) 
Food Adulteration Act, 195~Section 20( l}-Sanction for prosecution-
Requirement of-Sanction granted by a cyclostyled order stating reasons for 
grant of sanction-Whether valid in law-Held, yes. 
A 
B 
c 
Food Adulteration Act, 195~Section 16--Scope of qualification of 
Food lnspectol'-/f can be challenged in a proceeding under the Act-Held, 
no. 
Constitution of India-Article 142-0rder acquitting respondents found 
to be unsustainable-Acquittal not interfered with because of the time gap. 
D 
The appellant, a Food Inspector, purchased sample of milk from the 
premises of the respondents and sent the same to an analyst for examin~
tion. Report of the analyst indicated that the milk was adulterated. 
Under Section 20(1) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for laying E 
prosecution, a written consent of the Central Government, or the State 
Government or the person authorised in that behalf is mandatory. The 
appellant applied for such consent and was granted the same by the local 
Health Authority, who had been authorised under Section 20(1). The 
consent order dated 7.6.1986 mentioned that the consent was given after 
going through the analysis report of the public Analyst and other pertinent 
papers and documents and the nature of offence committed by the alleged 
offenders. The sanction letter was cyclostyled. 
F 
The Magistrate by order dated 8.2.1991 acquitted the respondents 
holding that the sanction granted by the local Health Authority was not in G 
accordance with law as the said Authority had failed to apply its mind to 
the facts of the case and the sanction order was a cyclostyled order. On 
merits, the Magistrate found in favour of the appellant. The High Court 
confit med the acquittal of the respondents. Hence the present appeals. 
In one of the cases, the qualification of the Food Inspector was also H 
747 
748 
SUPREME,COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A challenged and it was alleged that he did not have required training. 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The analysis report and the other pertinent material in 
connection therewith have been placed before the sanctioning authority. 
B After going through the material, sanction was granted for laying the 
prosecution. At that stage, it was not for the sanctioning authority to weigh 
pros and cons and then to find whether the case could end in conviction 
or acquittal or the adulteration was abnormal or marginal etc. All these 
are not matters for the sanctioning authority to weigh and to consider the 
C pros and cons of the case before granting sanction to lay prosecution 
against the respondents. Considered from this perspective the Magistrate 
was not right in law in holding that the sanction granted under Section 
20(1) is not valid in law. (752-D-F] 
A.K Roy & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1984) 4 SCC 326, 
D distinguished. 
State of Bombay v. Parshottam Kanaiyalal, (1961) 1 SCR 458 and 
State of Bihar v. P.P. Shanna, (1992) supp. 1 SCC 222, relied on. 
2. The qualifications of the Food Inspector cannot be challenged in 
E collateral proceedings. What is material is whether the Food Inspector had 
taken the samples in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the rules 
made thereunder. In case the Court finds that if he committed any con-
travention, what would be its effect on the prosecution is a matter to be 
considered but his qualifications cannot be looked into when he lays the 
F 
prosecution for adulteration of the articles offood under the Act. (752-G-H} 
3. It would not be proper under Article 142 of the Constitution of 
India in the facts and circumstances of the cases, to interfere at this 
belated stage. [753-A] 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
1612 of 1995 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.95 of the Gujarat High 
Court in Misc. Crl. A. No. 1836 of 1991. 
H 
Harish N. Salve, R.P. Bhat, B.A. Desai, Sunil Dogra, S.S. Shroff, for 
--
S.H. RAJPUTv. B.P. BHAI SONI 
749 
S.A.S. & Co., M.V. Goswami, Ms. H. Wahi, Mrs. Nandini Mukherjee, M.N. A 
Shroff, Mrs. J.S. Wad, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, K.K. Gupta and Anil Sach-
they (NP) for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
Facts in Criminal Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No. 1755 of 1992 would be 
sufficient for disposal of all the appeals. 
B 
On June 4, 1986, th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.