MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AJMER Vs. SADULLA
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, AJMER
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)BOTH these appeals, one filed by the Municipal Council, Ajmer and the other by the State of Rajasthan are directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions judge, Aimer dated 6-9-1967 whereby the respondent Sadulla has been acquitted of the charge under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and it raises an important question about the interpretation and the scope of Section 20 of the said Act.
(2.)ON a complaint filed by the Law Superintendent and Municipal Prosecuting inspector against respondent Sadulla the trial court recorded a finding that the milk sold, by Sadulla had 53% of water in it, and, therefore, he was guilty of an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. The learned Judge on an appeal set aside the conviction of the respondent on the ground that the complaint was filed against the respondent without obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority under Section 20 of the Act. During the course of trial the prosecution did not produce before the Court any order empowering the complainant to file the complaint, and it was at that stage that a resolution of the municipal Council dated 30th March, 1966 Ex. C. 2 was brought on the record. The resolution reads as follows:
"resolved that the Law Superintendent or the Municipal Prosecuting inspector of this Council is hereby authorised to institute prosecutions under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act XXVII of 1954) as required by Section 20 of the said Act. "
(3.)THE learned Sessions Judge did not consider this resolution sufficient to comply with the requirement of Section 20 of the Act as according to him this resolution was passed on 30-3-1966 and the complaint in this particular case was filed on the 23rd May, 1966 about 2 months after the passing of the said resolution and therefore in his opinion the resolution could not serve as a sanction for prosecuting the respondent under the provisions of the Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.