Chacko Mathew vs K.T. Mathukutty, Food Inspector, Sherthallai

M.U. Isaac, J.—This is a petition by the second accused in C.C. 12/66 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Sherthallai to revise an order, which the learned magistrate passed dismissing an objection petition, which was filed before him questioning the maintainability of the Prosecution. The petitioner along with another person was charged for certain offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The object on that the petitioner raised was that the prosecution was not maintainable for want of requisite authority for the complainant to institute the complaint as required by section 20(i) of the Act. Ex. P. 6 is the consent given by the Head Clerk in charge of the Municipality in favor of the complainant to file the complaint. Ex-P. 7 is a true copy of the resolution of the Municipal Council empowering the Head Clerk in charge to give the consent for filing any complaint u/s 20 of the Act. This satisfies the requirements of the section, as has been held in the decision reported in State of Bombay Parshottam Kanaiyalal A.I. R. 1961 S.C. J. which has been followed in Mammu v. Food Inspector 1965 K.L. T. 718. There is also a notification issued by the State Government in 1959 which is contained at page 1223 of the Statutory Rules and Notifications of Kerala 1959, under which the Food Inspectors appointed under the Act are generally authorized to institute prosecutions for offences under the Act. The complaint in this case was instituted by the Food Inspector of the Municipality. So, in any view of the matter the prosecution has been instituted by a competent officer in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This revision petition, therefore fails and is dismissed.