- (1.) THESE three Revision Applications have been referred by a Single Judge to a division Bench. In all these cases common questions of law are involved. We shall first deal with Cri. Revision No. 3 of 1962 Ratanlal v. State. The Sub-Divisional magistrate, Baran convicted Ratanlal accused under Section 16 (a) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act No. 37 of 1954) (hereinafter called 'the Act') for selling adulterated ghee in the town of Baran which has a municipality. A complaint was filed against the accused after obtaining permission of the Vice-Chairman of the Municipality who was acting as Chairman in his absence. The accused admitted his guilt. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate sentenced the accused to three months' rigorous imprisonment and payment of rs. 500/-/- as fine. An appeal was filed by the accused in the Court of the additional Sessions Judge, Baran. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court maintained the sentence of imprisonment but reduced the fine from Rs. 500/-/- to rs. 3oo/-/ -. Thereupon the accused filed the present Revision Application which came up for hearing before Bhargava, J. , who has referred it to a Division Bench as certain important questions of law are involved.
(2.) THE following points were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this Revision application: - (1) That the Baran Municipality was not declared a local area by the state Government andi therefore, the Municipal Board, Baran, could hot be the local authority for giving a valid written consent for the prosecution of the petitioner: (2) That even if the Municipal Board, Baran, is the local authority then the Vice-Chairman of the said Municipal Board, though he may be discharging executive functions of the Board under Section 67 (d) of the rajasthan Municipalities Act could not give a valid consent as he was not, authorised in this behalf by the said local authority as required by section 20 of the Act; (3) That the provisions of Section 67 (d) of the said Act are subject to the provisions of Section) 78, and under the latter section the said Board had not expressly delegated the power to grant consent to the Vice-Chairman and as such he could not give a valid written consent.
(3.) FOR the determination of some of the points it is necessary to refer to Section 2 (vii) and 2 (viii) of the Act which define 'local area' and 'local authority' respectively, and also to the notification issued by the State Government declaring 'local area' for the purposes of the Act. Section 2 (vii) and (viii) run, as follows: (vii) 'local area' means any area, whether urban or rural, declared by the state Government by notification in the Official Gazette, to be a local area for the purpose of this Act: (viii) 'local authority' means in the case of-- (i) a local area which is - (a) a municipality, the municipal board or municipal corporation; (b) a cantonment, the cantonment authority; (c) a notified area, the notified area committee; (2) Any other local area, such authority as may be prescribed by the State Government under this Act. ";