LexTHE STATE OF BOMBAY versus PAHSHOTTAM KANALYALAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Augrot .JI. 458 SCPREME COURT REPOHTS (1961] THE STATE OF BOMBAY v. PAHSHOTTAM KA~AlYALAL. (S. K. DAs, :\f. HrnA YATULLAH and X. RA.JAGOPALA AYYA1'0AR, JJ.) Cri111i11rd Trial-Sta/1,!e: barring prosecution except will: <rritten consent of con1petent a1,thorit):-iVhethcr co11sent 111ust be in favour of name.I paso11 - Food Ad11//cratio11 Act. r954 (37 of r954), s. 20(I). A complaint was filed against the respondent by the Food Inspector for selling adulterated milk. Section 20(1) of the foot\ Adulteration Act. 1954, provided that no prosecution shall be institutcJ untler the Act "except by. or with the written con- sent of. the State Government or local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority". On the application of the food Inspector consent in writing was gi1•en by a person authorised by the local autho- rity. But it was contended by the respondent that the -.•·ritten consent \\·as of no a\'ail as it did not in terms name the person in v.'hose favour it \Vas given. Held, that wl1ere a prosecution was launched on the basis of a written consent granted by the competent person or authority, it \\'as not nccr.ssary to name the complainant in the consent. The Act did not in terms re<1uirc that the GOmplarnant shall be named in the \\·rittcn consent nor could such a lirnitation or condition be gathered as a nect'3Sary intendment of the provi- sion. The written consent was for the launching of a specified prosecution an<l nce<l not necessarily be in favour of a complain- ant authorising him lo file a complaint. CRrnI~AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1959. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 18, 1957, of the former Bombay High Court in Criminal Hovision ~o. 1671 of 1957, arising out of the judgment and order dated June 7, 1957, of tho Sessions Judge, Baroda, in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1957. II. R. Khanna and D. Gupta, for tho appoll11.nt. G. C. Mathur, for the respondent. 1960. August 31. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 459 AYYANGAR J.-This appeal by special leave of this Court raises a very short point reg11rding the construc- tion of s. 20(1) of the Prevention of ]food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954). The respondent owned a milk shop within the Municipal limits of the city of Baroda. The Food Inspector of the Municipality visited the shop on July 9, 1956 and purchased milk for analysis. This was sent to the Public Analyst· and 1Yhen his report was to the effect that the sample was adulterated, the Inspector applied to the Chief Officer, Borough Muni- cipality, Baroda, for the latter'aconsent, for instituting criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (referred to hereafter as the Act), against the respondent. A consent in writing to the initiation of this prosecution was given by the Chief Officer and thereafter the complaiqt out of which this appeal arises was instituted charging the respond- ent with an offence under s. 16 read with s. 7 of the Act for selling adulterated food. The case was tried by the Special Judicial Magis- trate, First Class, Baroda. Besides denying his guilt, the accused raised various technical objections, the principal of which was that the prosecution was in- competent because of non.compliance with the terms of s. 20( 1) of the Act. This provision, omitting the proviso to which it is unnecessary to refer, runs: "No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written con- sent of, the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Govern- ment or a local authority." The Magistrate overruled these objections and hold- ing the accused guilty of the offence charged sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in defa,ult to rigor- ous imprisonment for three months. Dealing with the objection based on s. 20(1) of the Act with which alone we are concerned, the learned Magistrate said: " In the present case Baooda Municipal Borough is the local authority and it has authorized the Chief Officer and the health officer of the Municipality to ~9 The State of Bombay v. Pa•·shottani Ka11aiyalal Ayyangar J.l The State of Bonrbay v. Parsholtat'I Kanaiyalal .Ayyangar ]. 460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] grant sanction to institute proceedings under this Act
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.