- (1.) Delay condoned. Leave granted.
(2.) When Report of a Public Analyst was superseded by a certificate of Director of Central Food Laboratory, is it necessary to obtain a fresh consent to institute prosecution and recommence the proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') A single Judge of the High Court of Kerala held that it is necessary, and directed the trial Magistrate to wait for some more time and "in the event of no such consent of the appropriate authority is obtained and produced before the Magistrate within a reasonable time not exceeding one month - for the purpose", discharge the accused. The Food Inspector who instituted the prosecution as well as the State have filed this appeal by special leave against the said order of the High Court.
(3.) The facts out of which the said order happened to be passed, are the following : Appellant-Food Inspector filed a complaint against the respondent with the following allegations: While the complainant was acting as Food Inspector of Mobile Vigilance Squad (Ernakulam) he visited the grocery shop of the respondent on 15-4-1996 and purchased 750 gms. of "Toor Dal" for the purpose of taking sample as per the provisions of the Act. The sample was taken in the manner provided by the Act and one of the three parts of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who, after analysis, sent a Report stating that the sample contained Kesari Dal and hence it was adulterated. Thereupon the complaint was filed on the premise that the respondent has committed the offence under Section 16(1-A) of the Act read with Section 2(1)(h) and Section 7(1) of the Act.;