Against his companyviction and sentence the respondent filed an appeal to the Court of the Sessions Judge at Baroda.
The Appellate Court set aside the order of companyviction and sentence on the ground that the Food Inspector was number companypetent to institute the prosecution under s. 20 1 of the Act.
They, however, held that the written companysent should name the person who companyld institute the companyplaint and that as the companysent in the present case bad number named the Food Inspector as the person authorized to file the companyplaint, the prosecution was number legally initiated.
the companyplainant food inspector who sought the permission and numbere else.
Relying on the decision of a single Judge of the Madras High Court in Cannanore Milk Supply Co operative Society, In re 1 , the learned Sessions Judge held that under the terms of the section, the only authority with whose written companysent a prosecution companyld be instituted was the State Government and that neither the local autho rity number the person authorized in that behalf by the 1 1956 2 M.L.J. 465.
from the judgment and order dated December 18, 1957, of the former Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The case was tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baroda.
They disagreed with the Sessions Judge in his interpretation of s. 20 1 that a prosecution companyld number be instituted with the written companysent of any authority other than the State Government.
The learned Judges of the High Court affirmed the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
56 of 1959.
The matter was thereafter brought up before the High Court of Bombay by the State by an appeal later companyverted into a Criminal Revision petition.
He, therefore, set aside the companyviction and sentence and discharged the respondent.
1671 of 1957, arising out of the judgment and order dated June 7, 1957, of the Sessions Judge, Baroda, in Criminal Appeal No.
33 of 1957.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
This was sent to the Public Analyst and when his report was to the effect that the sample was adulterated, the Inspector applied to the Chief Officer, Borough Municipality, Baroda, for the latters companysent, for instituting criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 referred to hereafter as the Act , against the respondent.
The Food Inspector of the Municipality visited the shop on July 9, 1956 and purchased milk for analysis.
Appeal by special leave.
The respondent owned a milk shop within the Municipal limits of the city of Baroda.
C. Mathur, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR J. This appeal by special leave of this Court raises a very short point regarding the companystruction of s. 20 1 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 37 of 1954 .
B. Khanna and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
A companysent in writing to the initiation of this prosecution was given by the Chief Officer and thereafter the companyplaint out of which this appeal arises was instituted charging the respondent with an offence under s. 16 read with s. 7 of the Act for selling adulterated food.
August 31.
State Government or the local authority were companypetent to grant written companysents for the initiation of prosecutions.
