P.N.Bakshi - (1.) THE sole question on which this revision was admitted was whether the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Nainital was authorised to grant sanction for prosecution of the accused- applicant vide (Ex. ka 7) dated 23rd September, 1976. Considering the fact that this question was likely to arise in some more cases, I fixed an early date for disposal of the same and also summoned the record. THE sanction in question has been granted by Sri K. C. Bhatnagar, as the Zila Swasthya Adhikari Nainital (District Medical Officer of Health, Nainital). From the statement of Sri Shanti Prasad Gupta, the food inspector, dated 19th November, 77, it appears that the District Medical Officer of Health was designated as Deputy Chief Medical Officer Nainital.
(2.) COUNSEL for the applicant has argued that the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Nainital was not authorised to grant sanction for prosecution with respect to the offence in question which had been committed on the 18th July, 1978. He has relied upon a Notification published in the U. P. Gazette dated 13th November, 76 Part I, Ka, at page 3655, which is quoted as under:- "No. 6000/XVI-X-722-55, September 18, 1976. In exercise of powers under clause (Vlll-a) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act No. XXXVII of 1954) and in supersession of Government notification no. 2509/ XVI-X-722-55 dated May 1, 1976 the Government is pleased to appoint with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the official Gazette, all the Chief Medical Officers as 'Local (Health) Authority' to be in charge of the Health Administration under the said Act for the whole of the district to which they are posted including Nagar Mahapalikas, Nagar Palikas, Notified and Town Area." The argument is that the Chief Medical Officer as local Health Authority becomes incharge of the health administration of the whole of the District and therefore he alone was authorised to grant sanction for prosecution. I have very carefully applied my mind to the Notification but I am unable to read it in the manner in which it had been argued. By this Notification, all Chief Medical Officers as local health authority incharge of health administration, have been authorised to act for the whole of the District to which they arc posted, in a Nagar Mahapalika, or Nagar Palika, or Notified Area or a Town Area. Nowhere does this notification specifically speak of the exercise of powers by the Chief Medical Officer for granting sanction for prosecution under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Nowhere does this Notification take away the powers of the existing authorities, who have earlier been appointed and vested with powers to grant the requisite sanction under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Nowhere does this Notification indicate that the power of sanction shall be exercised under Section 20 of the said Act by the Chief Medical Officer of Health acting as a local authority alone and not by any other authority authorised under Section 20 of the said Act. For these reasons, I find it impossible to hold that this Notification deprives the District Medical Officer of Health, of the power vested in him by the Notification, issued earlier in 1955, authorising him to grant the requisite sanction. By Notification no. 10305/XVI- (PH) 461-52, dated 16-12-1955, published in the U. P. Gazette on 24th December, 1955 Part I, at page 1, the Government of U. P. authorised interalia all District Medical Officers of Health in U. P. to give written consent for instituting prosecution under Sec. 20 of this Act, with respect to areas inter- alia rural as well as urban within their jurisdictions. This Notification was in no manner affected by the Notifiction of 16th September, 76, relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. As such reading Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act along with the Notification of 1955, 1 have no doubt in my mind that the sanction was properly granted by Sri K. C. Bhatnagar, District Medical Officer of Health.
(3.) COUNSEL for the applicant has argued that in view of the statement of the Food Inspector Sri Bhatnagar was the Deputy Chief Medical Officer and he was not authorised to grant sanction. In this connection, it would be pertinent to note that the sanction in question was granted on 23rd September, 76 and the statement of the Food Inspector was recorded on 19th November, 77. Even assuming that Sri K. C. Bhatnagar was designated the Deputy Chief Medical Officer on the latter date it would not deprive Sri Bhatnagar of the existing powers already vested in him as the District Medical Officer of Health to grant sanction for prosecution. As I have said above, the Notification relied upon by the applicant's counsel does not in any manner divest Sri Bhatnagar of his power to act as Sanctioning Authority under Section 20 of the said Act. Subsequently it appears, due to change in designation, that Notification no. 2509/XVI-10-722-55 dated 1st May, 1977 had been published in the U. P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 1st May, 77. By this Notification, all Deputy Chief Medical Officers of Health in U. P. have been appointed as local authorities for all rural and urban areas in their respective jurisdictions. Prior to 1st May, '77 the District Medical Officers of Health continued to exercise their powers as such. The statement of Food Inspector was recorded on 19th November, '77 which means six months subsequent to the Notification of 1977, on that date Sri Saxena was acting as Deputy Chief Medical Officer. Prior to that date, he was acting as District Medical Officer of Health. Therefore, the statement of the Food Inspector, when interpreted in its proper perspective, does not at all deprive the District. Medical Officer of Health of his power to grant sanction on 3rd September, 76 when the only designation by which he could be described, and by which he was vested with powers, was that of District Medical Officer of Health. On that date he was not the Deputy Chief Medical Officer. Therefore, he was the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution. With regard to the facts of the case, I was satisfied, at the time of preliminary hearing, that it did not deserve admission. However even at this stage I hate again perused both the impugned orders to satisfy myself that no error cor illegality has been committed in convicting the accused-applicant for the offence under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to the report of the Public-Analyst, it is clear that the sample of milk which was purchased from him was deficient by 37 per cent in non-fatty solids. Thus, it was clearly adulterated. The courts below have considered the oral and documentary evidence on the record to come to the conclusion that the applicant was guilty of the offence in question. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the courts below to warrant interference.;