C.A.Rahim - (1.) THIS revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 8.7.1982 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge. Varanasi, in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1982 confirming the judgment and order dated 4.1.1982 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Varanasi, in Criminal case No. 960 of 1981 whereby which he convicted the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- either to R.I. for three months.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has submitted that no sanction was accorded by the competent authority and hence the prosecution is bad in law and accordingly conviction and sentence should be quashed. Under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act written consent is required by the Central Government or State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by general or specific order. In the instant case sanction of the Chief Medical Officer was obtained as local health authority as he was declared to be Incharge of health administration under the said Act for the whole of the district under Notification No. 6000/XVI-X-722-55, dated 18.9.1976 which was published in the U.P. Gazette part-I-A, dated 13.11.1976. The learned counsel has referred another notification being No. 6001 and submitted that under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Nagar Swasthya Adhikaris of the respective Nagar Mahapalikas were authorised to accord sanction to the Prosecution of the offences committed within five Nagar Mahapalikas of Lucknow, Varanasi, Allahabad, Kanpur and Agra. He has produced copies of the relevant gazette to support his contention. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred both the Notifications and his finding was that, jurisdiction of Chief Medical Officers was not excluded. According to him under Notification 6001 Nagar Swasthya Adhikaris shall exercise these powers to sanction prosecution in addition and not to the exclusion of Chief Medical Officers. After going through both the Notification I find that the Chief Medical Officers of the district were declared as local health authority in respect of whole of the district, including Nagar Mahapalikas, Nagar Palikas, Notified and Town Areas, under the previous notification i.e. 6000 dated 18.9.1976, but in the subsequent Notification i.e. 6001 of the said date only Nagar Mahapalikas have been given special status and sanction to prosecution was authorised to Nagar Swasthya Adhikaris in respect of those five Nagar Mahapalikas. So after going through both the Notifications as a whole the proper interpretation would be that in respect of five Nagar Mahapalikas mentioned in the Notification 6001 only Nagar Swasthya Adhikaris are entitled to accord sanction to launch prosecution in respect of offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The subsequent Notification is to be read along with Notification 6000 and it would be made clear that in respect of five Nagar Mahapalikas special provision was made. I do not find any ambiguity in those two Notifications and I must hold that the interpretation made by the learned lower appellate court does not seem to be convincing and the same was not based on sound reasoning.
(3.) IN the instant case since sanction to prosecution was not accorded by proper authority under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, no prosecution can be started against any person for violation of any of the provisions of the said Act. Accordingly I find that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is bad in law and the conviction and sentence cannot be maintained. The revision is, therefore, allowed. The judgment and order dated 4.1.1982 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Varanasi and the Judgment and order dated 8.7.1982 passed by the Ilnd Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi, are hereby set aside. The accused is, therefore, acquitted. His bail bond is discharged. Revision allowed.;