S.S.BYAS,J. - (1.) THE State has come up in the appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali dated May 2, 1977 by which accused -respondent Heera Lal was acquitted of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'). The accused was initially convicted under the aforesaid sections by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali by his judgment dated September 9, 1975 and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that the Food Inspector Shanti Prasad Vyas visited the shop of the accused situated in village Rohat on 11th December, 1969. He found the accused selling food articles. The Food Inspector suspected the chillies powder to be adulterated. He disclosed his identity and purchased 750 grams of chillies powder from the accused by making a payment of Rs. 2/ -. He divided the sample in three parts and properly sealed them. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, Rajasthan, Jaipur from where report was received that the sample was adulterated as it did not conform with the prescribed standards of purity. The Food Inspector thereafter presented the papers before the District Medical and Health Officer, Pali who authorised the Food Inspector Shanti Prasad Vyas who launched prosecution against the accused. A complaint was thereafter filed against accused in the Court of Sub -Divisional Magistrate on 27 -10 -1970. The accused denied the guilt and faced the trial. The case later on came for trial before the learned CJM, Pali who convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned at the very outset The accused went in appeal. The appeal was accepted and his conviction was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge. Aggrieved against the acquittal, the State has come up in appeal. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the leanred counsel for the accused. It was argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the merits of the appeal need not be decided becuase the prosecution and trial of the accused were wholly illegal. lt was argued that the District Medical and Health Officer, Pali who is the local authority, authorised the Food Inspector Shanti Prashad Vyas to file the complaint against the accused under Section 16 of the Act. The complaint was not filed by the Food Inspector Shanti Prashad Vyas. It was filed by the prosecuting Sub -Inspector. As such the whole trial stands vitiated. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on Sadra v. The State of Rajasthan 1984 RCC 301, Deo Kishan v. State of Rajasthan 1984 RCC 304, and Vania v. State of Rajasthan 1984 RCC 260. In reply, it was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that objection as to the maintenability of the complaint on the ground now raised in this Court was not taken by the accused in the Courts below. As such the objection should not be entertained now at this stage. As regards two authorities cited above the learned Public Prosecutor had to submit that in case his aforesaid objection is not accepted, the present case is covered by the aforesaid authorities.
(3.) WE have taken the respective submisssions into consideration. Admittedly, the written consent to launch prosecution and file the complaint was accorded by the Municipal Board to the Food Inspector vide Ex. P 6. A perusal of the case file shows that the complaint was filed not by the Food Inspector but by the somebody else i.e the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the trial Court. Section 20 of the Act speaks of the persons or authorities who can initiate prosecution. They are: (1) the Central Government; (2) the State Government; (3) A person with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government; (4) a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government; and (5) persons referred to in Section 12 of the Act. No person or authority other than those referred to above can file a complaint under the Act. If a complaint is filed by any person other than specified above the prosecution would be void ab initio. Where the complaint is filed by an unauthorised person, the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance thereon. Since the Assistant Public Prosecutor was not the person or authority to whom the written consent to launch the complaint was given, he had no power to present the complaint. A similar view was taken by this Court in the two decisions referred to above which we approve.;