Bhagwati, J. - (1.) This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta confirming an order passed by the Presidency Magistrate holding that a complaint under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta against the respondents was not competent and discharging the respondents. The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows.
(2.) The respondents are proprietors of a grocery shop situate in the city of Calcutta. The Food Inspector took samples of turmeric powder sold by the respondents in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the rules made under the Act and sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst for analysis. It was found, as a result of the analysis, that the sample was heavily adulterated and was not fit for human consumption. The Food Inspector on these facts, filed a complaint against the respondents in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate after obtaining the written consent of the Health Officer which was endorsed at the foot of the complaint. The complaint was made in the name of the Corporation of Calcutta through the Food Inspector. The complaint charged the respondents with the offence of adulteration punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Act. It appears that the trail proceeded for sometimes before the learned Presidency Magistrate, but before it came to an end a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the complaint was not filed by the proper authority as required by Section 20 (1) of the Act and was hence not maintainable. The ground on which the preliminary objection was based was that under Section 20 (1) a complaint could be filed only by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in that behalf by general or special order by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority while in the present case, the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector who was not a person authorised by the Central Government of the State Government or the Corporation of Calcutta and there was accordingly non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 20 (1). The prosecution relied on a resolution passed by the Corporation of Calcutta on 23rd December, 1966, by which an earlier resolution dated 23rd December 1955, authorising the Health Officer to institute a prosecution under the Act was modified and it was provided that "non-prosecution for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and the rules framed thereunder shall be instituted except with the written consent of the Health Officer who is authorised this behalf by the Corporation, a local authority, under Section 20 (1) of the said Act." It was contended on behalf of the prosecution that since the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector with the written consent of the Health Officer, who was authorised in that behalf by the Corporation of Calcutta under Section 20 (1), the complaint was in conformity with the requirement of Sec. 20 (1) and was hence maintainable. The learned Presidency Magistrate, however, rejected this contention of the prosecution and taking the view that what Section 20 (1) required was that the complaint must be filed by one of the four categories of persons there mentioned, namely, the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in that behalf, held that since the present complaint was filed by the Food Inspector and he was not a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government or the Corporation of Calcutta, the complaint could not be said to be properly filed and the Court was not competent to take cognizance of the offence on such complaint and in this view the learned Presidency Magistrate discharged the respondents. The Corporation of Calcutta preferred a Criminal Revision Application against this order to the High Court of Calcutta but a single Judge of the High Court who heard the Criminal Revision Application agreed with the view taken by the learned Presidency Magistrate and confirmed the order of discharge passed by him. The Corporation of Calcutta thereupon obtained a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution and hence the present appeal before us.
(3.) The sole question which arises for determination before us is whether the complaint filed by the Food Inspector on behalf of the Corporation of Calcutta was in conformity with the requirement of Section 20 (1) of the Act. Section 20 (1) reads as follows: "No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by or with written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority." It is clear on a plain reading of the language of Section 20 (1) that it inhibits institution of prosecution for an offence under the Act except on fulfilment of one or the other of two conditions. Either the prosecution must be instituted by the Central Govt. on the State Govt. or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or the prosecution should be instituted with the written consent of any one of these four specified categories of authorities or individuals. If either of these two conditions is satisfied, it would be sufficient authority for the institution of a prosecution. Now in the present case, the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector and there can be no doubt that so far the first condition is concerned, it was not fulfilled since the Food Inspector was admittedly not a person authorised to institute a prosecution by the Corporation of Calcutta. But that would not be sufficient to invalidate the complaint, because the complaint would be valid even if the second condition is satisfied. Here the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector with the written consent of the Health Officer and the Health Officer was admittedly a person authorised to give written consent by the Corporation of Calcutta. The complaint was, therefore, filed with the written consent of "a person authorised in this behalf by a local authority" and the requirement of the second condition was clearly satisfied. There was, in the circumstances, no breach of the requirement of Section 20 (1) in the filing of the complaint by the Food Inspector with the written consent of the Health Officer and the prosecution was properly instituted.;