Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE applicants were prosecuted under Section 14 read with R. 12-A and Sec. 7 (v) of the Prevention of -Food Adulteration Act. THE Magistrate held that the sanction for the prosection for the alleged offence was not competent. He, accordingly, discharged the accused. THE State went up in revision. THE finding of the Magistrate was reversed, the order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Magistrate for fresh trial.
(2.) THE principal question involved is whether the sanction for the prosecution was valid. THE sanction was in fact granted by the District Medical Officer of Health, Etawah, in the following words : ' Prosecution is sanctioned if I am empowered to sanction it for Municipal Board areas." The shop of the applicants where they sold the impugned quantity of Glucose was situate within Municipal areas of Etawah. The Municipal Board, Etawah, had appointed a Municipal Medical Officer. The Inspector had approached the Municipal Medical Officer for granting sanction for the prosecution of the applicants, but that officer refused to do so. Thereupon, the Inspector, according to his own statement, approached the District Medical Officer who granted the sanction as mentioned above. Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that no prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by or with the 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 them. The Slate Government issued a notification dated 16th December, 1955. By it the following officers were authorised to institute or to give written consent for instituting prosecution under the Act, in the territories mentioned against each : "1. All Municipal Officers of Health in U. P. ... The Municipal areas within their jurisdiction. 2. All District Medical Officers of Health in U. P. .......... The rural and Urban areas within their jurisdiction including Municipal areas.''
(3.) BY a Government Order dated July 29, 1969, the Government appointed all the District Medical Officers to be ex-officio Medical Officers in those Municipalities in which no Medical Officer of Health had been posted. Reading the two notifications it is apparent that primarily the Municipal Medical Officers of Health in Uttar Pradesh had jurisdiction to accord sanction for the prosecution for offences committed in their areas. If in a particular Municipal Board there is no Municipal Medical Officer of Health or in cases where there are no such officer actually posted and working, the jurisdiction has also been conferred on District Medical Officer of Health in respect of Municipal areas. This, to my mind, is the safest way to harmonise both the provisions and to avoid overlapping and uncertainty. In the next place, if the sanction for prosecution was refused by the Municipal Medical Officer of Health, the District Medical Officer of Health could not be treated as an appellate authority to obtain sanction. In the present case the Inspector had approached the Municipal Medical Officer of Health, but he refused. Then he approached the District Medical Officer who was doubtful about his jurisdiction, but he granted the sanction subject to the condition mentioned above. In my opinion, the District Medical Officer of Health had no jurisdiction to entertain the request of the Inspector to grant sanction once the sanction had actually been refused by the Municipal Medical Officer of Health. The learned Magistrate took a correct view of the law in discharging the accused.;