- (1.)IT will be convenient to dispose of all the six Criminal Revisions together. They are from Agra involving similar questions of fact and law. All the applicants are milk-sellers and have been convicted under Section 7/6 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The complaints against these applicants were either filed by Dr. L. N. Saxena or Dr. Niranjan Prasad, who were at the relevant time under the employ of Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, as will be clear from the following statements: Criminal Revn. No. Complaint filedby Din Co 1522 of 1w64 (Beharilal v. State ). 1523 of 1864 (Beharilal v. State ). 1152 of 1984 Mehtab Dr. L. N. Saxena Dr. L. N. Saxena Dr. Niranian 3194 Singh v. State ). 1591 of 1964 (Nibboov. State ). 1552 of 1964 (Shyamlal v. State ). Prasad Dr. Niranian Prasad Dr. Niranian Prasad 30 1235 of 1964 (Ram Dr. Niranjan singh v. State ). Prasad
(2.)THE main objection of the applicants in each case is that the complaint had not been signed and instituted by a proper authority; and as such, their prosecution and conviction was illegal. In other words, Dr. L. N. Saxena and Dr. Niranjan Prasad had not been duly appointed as Nagar Mahapalika Swasthya Adhikaris, nor had they been authorized to lodge complaints under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(3.)SECTION 20 (1) of the Act provides: No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the State Government or a local authority or a person authorized in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority. By means of Notification No. 10305/xvi (P. H.)-461-52, dated 16th December, 1955, published in U. P. Gazette, dated 24. 12. 1955, the State Government had authorized all Municipal Medical Officers of Health in Uttar Pradesh to institute or to give written consent for instituting prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in respect of Municipal areas within their jurisdiction.