FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. M PANDARINATH
LAWS(APH)-1992-9-51
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 24,1992

FOOD INSPECTOR Appellant
VERSUS
M.PANDARINATH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

B. RAJA GOWD VS. STATE (FOOD INSPECTOR) [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM PAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. K. RAJESHWAR RAO [REFERRED TO]
CHATURBHUJ YADAV VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STAE OF GUJARAT VS. PARSHOTTAM KANAIYALAI [REFERRED TO]
A K ROY VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. P P SHARMA IAS [REFERRED TO]
ADDA KASIVISWESWARA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SENIOR FOOD INSPECTOR ANANTHAPUR VS. RAVURU SUBBAIAH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. JANARDAN RAMCHANDRA NRAWANKAR [REFERRED TO]
REKHABAI VS. DATTATRAYA [REFERRED TO]
AGAHININATH BHIMRAO PATEKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J. - (1.)The learned Public Prosecutor preferred these Criminal Appeals challenging the acquittal of the respondents on the simple ground that the written consent given under Sec.20 clause (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is vitiated for not giving the detailed reasons. The basis of acquittal of the accused is two decisions of single Judges of our High Court reported in B. Raja Gowd vs. State (Food Inspector) and in A. Kasi Visweswara Rao vs. State of A.P.
(2.)The learned Public Prosecutor challenging the acquittal submitted that the decisions referred to above which constituted the main basis for acquittal in cases arising under the Act, proceeded without drawing the distinction between the words "written consent" used in Section 20 clause (1) of the Act and the "sanction" for prosecution required under some other enactments. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Y. Bhaskar Rao, J., placed reliance upon the decision in A.K. Roy vs. State of Punjab and proceeded on the basis that the sanction order must contain what is adulterated as per the report of the Public Analyst what material it has perused and then what are the reasons for granting the sanction in the light of public interest. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.K Roy vs. State of Punjab which is the basis of the decision by Bhaskar Rao, J., mainly considered the question of further delegation of powers under Section 20 of the Act by the person authorised by Central or State Government. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that unlike the sanction which requires the authority to go through the entire material and apply its mind before according sanction, the written consent as contemplated under Section 20 clause (1) of the Act, need not give all these details and it is sufficient if the written consent indicates the material placed before the competent authority while considering the question of according written consent and that it has applied its mind to the said material placed before it. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the granting of written consent being an, official act, a presumption should be drawn under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that the official acts have been regularly performed.
(3.)In Criminal Appeal No.273 of 1991 Smt. C. Vineetha Reddy has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in arriving at the proper decision in the case. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy advanced arguments in Criminal Appeal No.849 of 1991.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.