Bagchi, J. - (1.) This is an appeal on taking special leave under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of the Calcutta Corporation against the order of the acquittal passed by the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta acquitting the respondent of an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The accused respondent No. 1 is the Calcutta Wholesale Consumers Cooperative Society Ltd. (Retail Section) which is the main accused. Timir Haran Sen Gupta, Executive Officer and Deputy Registrar of the organisation is the accused no. 2 and Niswanath Bhattacharjee, Sales-in-charge and seller of the organisation is the accused no. 3. From the records it appears that the complainant Corporation of Calcutta presented through Dr. R. Chandra, Food Inspector, a petition against the accused respondents before the Court of the Third Presidency Magistrate of the First Class specially empowered to take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cause Title of the petition of complaint). A Presidency Magistrate is not a Magistrate of the First Class. He is a Magistrate of no-class, but he is a Magistrate sui juris as Presidency Magistrate. Under the fifth column in the petition of complaint the relevant portion runs as follows :-- "The humble petition of Dr. R. Chandra Food Inspector, appointed by the State Government under Section 9 of the P. F. A. Act for the whole of Calcutta, complainant above-named." The relevant allegation in paragraph (1) of the complaint is as follows :-- "That on 15-9-1965 the complainant inspected the shop of accused No. 1 of which accused No. 2 is Executive & Deputy Registrar and accused No. 3 is sales-in-charge and seller situated at 21 Chittaranjan Avenue and found an article of food namely Matar Dal stored, exposed for sale. Sample was purchased from accused no. 3 of the said food bearing F. I. serial No. 005348 after due observance of all the legal formalities and one part of the said sample was made over to the accused No. 3 another part was sent to the Public Analyst being Lab. Regd. No. 896 and the remaining part is with the complainant for future reference. The Public Analyst opined that the said food is adulterated and unfit for human consumption as per report of analysis in the Scheduled form being Report No. S/65/106, a true copy of the same is attached herewith. The original will be produced during the trial." Paragraph (2) reads as follows :-- "That your petitioner duly submitted the record of his inspection of the present case to the Health Officer, Corporation of Calcutta and under his direction and with his consent, the present complaint is filed in court. In the circumstances, the complainant prays that your honour will be pleased to issue summons against the accused persons named above for offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the P. F. A. Act, 1954 read with Section 7 of the said Act and to try the said accused persons in accordance with law." The accused persons were summoned by the learned Magistrate. Evidence was gone into. The learned Magistrate upon considering the report of the analyst observed as follows :-- "It appears from the Analyst's report (Ex. 6) that the tests as prescribed in standard A. 18.06(i) & (iii) under Appendix B of P. F. A. Rules for foodgrains meant for human consumption have not been performed by the Public Analyst in the present case. Matar dal is obviously a food grain and these tests shall apply in its case. Hence the analysis of the sample is incomplete and as such the Public Analyst's opinion is unacceptable. In this view of the matter the accused persons are found not guilty under Section 16(l)(a)(i)/7 of P. F. A. Act 1954 and accordingly acquitted and set at liberty forthwith."
(2.) Before I go into the merits of the appeal, I should point out that the petition of complaint was filed by the Food Inspector as complainant under the direction and with the consent of the Health Officer of the Calcutta Corporation. Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 reads as follows :-- "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 authorised in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority; Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by a purchaser referred to in Section 12, if he produces in court a copy of the report of the public analyst along with the complaint."
(3.) It is clear from the petition of complaint that the complainant is the Food Inspector but the cause title of the petition of complaint shows that it is the Calcutta Corporation. The Food Inspector was not authorised by the Calcutta Corporation, a local authority, but was authorised by the Health Officer of the Calcutta Corporation. Under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 any person authorised by a local authority may file a petition of complaint for prosecution of an offence under the Act. In the present case, the petition of complaint was filed by Dr. R. Chandra, the Food Inspector under the direction and with the consent of the Health Officer of the Calcutta Corporation. The Health Officer of the Calcutta Corporation is not a local authority. The complainant Dr. R. Chandra is the Food Inspector appointed by the State Government under Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for the whole of Calcutta and he describes himself in paragraph 5 of the petition of complaint as "complainant abovenamed", but the cause title of the petition of complaint reads: "Complainant Corporation of Calcutta through Dr. R. Chandra. Food Inspector". The petition of complaint, therefore, bristles with rigmarolic statements. Who is the complainant?; Calcutta Corporation, Dr. R. Chandra, Food Inspector or the two signatories and one having his facsimilie rubber stamp impression at the bottom of the reverse page of the petition of complaint. The petition of complaint contains on the reverse side at the bottom the following :-- APPROVED CONSENTED Illegible. Illegible. D.H.O. No. 1. Health Officer Then a facsimilie impression -- "Illegible. Commissioner". Now if the Calcutta Corporation is the complainant then under Section 585 of the Calcutta Municipal Act read with Section 30 of the Act it is the Commissioner who alone for and on behalf of the Calcutta Corporation can present a petition of complaint for violation of any law under the Calcutta Municipal Act and the rules, regulations and bye-laws made thereunder. In a Division Bench judgment (unreported) Criminal Reference No. 1 of 1967 under Section 432 Cr. P. C., Corporation of Calcutta v. Biva Bati Basu, judgment delivered on December 23, 1968 (Cal); it has been held that the Commissioner is required to subscribe his own signature on a petition of complaint presented before a Municipal Magistrate for and on behalf of the Calcutta Corporation asking the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence against the violator of the law under the Calcutta Municipal Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. Facsimilie rubber stamp impression of the signature of the Commissioner on petition of complaint is not a valid petition of complaint upon which the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 200(a) read with Section 190(l)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Health Officer is a consenting party and D. H. O. I is the approving party and the Commissioner is a party without any statement as to what part he had taken while his facsimilie rubber stamp impression was set forth above the typed word "Commissioner" on the petition of complaint. If the facsimilie rubber stamp impression of the Commissioner was affixed purporting to be a complainant on behalf of the Calcutta Corporation then this complaint was not a complaint according to law and upon that complaint the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance. Again, if it is a complaint by Dr. Chandra who is a Food Inspector appointed by the State Government for the entire area of Calcutta Corporation, he was not authorised either by the Calcutta Corporation or by the State Government to present the petition of complaint. The beauty of the thing is that Dr. R. Chandra did not subscribe his signature at the bottom of the petition of complaint, but he described himself in paragraph 5 of the petition of complaint as the "complainant above-named", meaning Dr. Chandra, the complainant. So, the petition of complaint filed by Dr. Chandra was an unauthorised petition and was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.;