State by Public Prosecutor vs Vellaya Nadar

Somasundaram, J.—The Food Inspector, attached to the Nelliyalam Panchayat filed a complaint against the Respondent under Ss.7 and

16(1) read with S. 21(1)(a)(h) and Rule 44 (a) (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, stating therein that the latter on 29th February 1968

at about 12-30 p.m. at Nalliyalam was found in possession and sold smooth pea flour which on analysis was found to be admixed with 25 % of

Kesari dal, the use of which in food is injurious to health.

The Respondent contended that the complainant had no specific authority to lay the complaint as contemplated by Clause (1) of S. 20 of the Act.

Observing that there was no such authorisation in favour of P.W. 1 the learned Magistrate dropped further proceedings in the case. The

correctness of this order is challenged in this criminal revision case.

Clause (1) of S. 20 states that no prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of the State

Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or local authority. S. 9 of the Act provides for the

appointment of Food Inspectors. In exercise of the power conferred by S. 9 the Government of Madras in G.O. No. 2521 Health dated 26th

November 1956 has appointed the Municipal Health Officer and the Sanitary Inspectors under his control in each Municipality as food Inspectors

for the purpose of the Act. In G.O. No. 1861 Health dated 6th June 1956 all Food Inspectors have been authorised to institute prosecutions for

offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as required u/s 20 (1) of the Act. The notification reads thus:

In exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (1) of S. 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954) the

Governor of Madras hereby authorises the Food Inspectors appointed under the said Act to institute prosecution for offences under the Act.

Following the decision of Issac, J. in Abdulla Haji and Another Vs. Food Inspector, Muliyar Panchayath, the learned Magistrate has held that

G.O. 1861 dated 6th June 1956 can apply only to the Food Inspectors appointed under the Act on the date prior to this notification and not to

food Inspectors appointed on any subsequent date. Subsequently in the decision in Subbayan Muthukumaran v. State of Kerala AIR 1968 Ker.

330, the Bench of the Court to which Issac J. himself was a party has held that S. 20(1) as it now stands does not require a special authorisation

or an authorisation of any officer by name. In other words, a general authorisation is sufficient. It need not be by name. ""What stands in the way of

a court taking cognisance of an offence under the Act is S. 20(1); and what the court has, therefore, to see is only whether the prosecution has

been instituted by any one of the authorities or persons mentioned in the said section"".

The Notification covered by G.O. No. 1861, dated 6th June 1956 is a general notification authorising the Food Inspectors appointed as such

under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to institute prosecutions under the Act. In other words, it is an appointment by office and not by

name. Any one holding the office gets the authorisation to institute the prosecution. The State Government has appointed the Food Inspectors as

such to institute prosecutions under the Act. The complainant in this case has been appointed Food Inspector. Such a Food Inspector is authorised

by the G.O. to institute prosecution under the Act. Therefore, P.W. 1 is competent to file the complaint. The reasoning of the learned Magistrate is

erroneous. His order dropping the proceedings is set aside. The case shall be retried by a Magistrate other than the Magistrate who disposed of it

earlier. The District Magistrate shall nominate him.