- (1.) THIS is a revision application by one Mahadeo. He was convicted by the Municipal Magistrate, Jodhpur of an offence Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter to be referred as the "act", and sentenced to one year's-rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. His appeal was partially allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, who maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default three months' simple imprionment.
(2.) THE accused is a dealer in food articles in the city of Jodhpur. On 23-2-1966, the Food Inspector, Shri Laxman Singh (P. W. 1) went to the shqp of the accused and took samples of "til" oil and 'sarson' (mustered) oil f on payment, for analysis. He prepared? the Memo and divided the samples in three phials as usual. One phial of each sample was given to the accused, two phials of each sample were' sent to the Public Analyst at Jaipur and the remaining phials were kept with the local' authority. The sample of 'til' oil was found to be alright by the Public Analyst, but in the sample of 'sarson' oil it was found that the , saponification value was 181. 1, when according to the prescribed standard it should have been between 168 and 175. Consequently and complaint was lodged by the Food Inspector in the court of the learned Municipal Magistrate with the result mentioned at the outset.
(3.) AT the forefront of his argument learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken' the point that the prosecution of, the accused was without proper sanction or written consent of the competent authority as the order Ex. P/5 did 'not fulfil the requirements of law may deal with that question at this point. Section 20 of the Act reads as under: "section 20. Cognizance and trial of offences: (1) 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 the Central Government or 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. (2) The court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act. 3a. For appreciating the contention I may read in full the order Ex. P/5: MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JODHPUR. SANCTION With the powers enjoined by me as the Chairman, Municipal Council, Jodh-pur under the Raiasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, am competent to give sanction Under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. I. . . Sukh Singh Bhati. . . after applying my mind to the facts and documents of this. case and being convinced that a case is made out against Shri Mahadev s/o Tehal Ram hereby sanction launching of prosecution of Ma"hadev s/o Tehal Ram Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. and of the rules made under this act in the court of law in the interest of justice and fair play. Sd/-Chairman, seal of local (Local Authori Authority. Municipal Coun Jodhpur. Sd/;