- (1.) THIS is an appeal from the order of the First Class Magistrate, Delhi, recording an acquittal in favour of the respondent Lekh Raj in a complaint filed Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
(2.) IT was on 13th of, May, 1958, that the Food Inspector of the Municipal Committee took a sample from the respondent, Lekh Raj, of cow's milk which he purported to be in possession of for the purpose of sale. The sample was sent for examination to a Public Analyst and it was found on a report made by him on 19th of May, 1958, that it consisted of adulterated Milk. Consequently, a complaint was filed in Court Under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, on 30th of June, 1958, by Mr. B. B. Tawakley, Advocate, on behalf of the Municipal Committee, The complaint was withdrawn and a brief order was passed by Shri Tyagi, Magistrate First Class, on 12th of February, 1959 to this effect: As the complainant withdraws the complaint and does not want to proceed further with it the accused Lekh Raj is acquitted in this case. Another complaint about the same offence was instituted, this time on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which came into existence in pursuance of the previsions o the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, on 7th of April, 1958. As an identical complaint for the same offence had been withdrawn and the petitioner acquitted by Shri Tyagi, the Magistrate took the view that the present complaint could not be entertained Under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly dismissed it. It is against this order of dismissal of 15th o June, 1961, that the present appeal is directed.
(3.) IT has been submitted by Mr. D. D. Chawla, on behalf of the appellant, that the complaint which resulted in the order of acqittal could not be taken cognizance of Under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for the reason that it had not been instituted with the consent of the local authority. Section 20 provides that: No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, of 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. It has been pointed out that Shri Tawakley, who was undoubtedly authorised by the Municipal Committee of Delhi to institute the complaint could not do so on behalf of the Delhi Municipal Corporation which had corns into existence on 7th of April, 1958, before the complaint was actually filed. , Our attention has also been drawn by Mr. Chawla to the notification which was issued on 3rd of June, 1958, in which the area of the Municipal Corporation was declared to be the local area.;