9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (9) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imprisonment for a further period of six weeks. Appeal filed by the appellant was, dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge Cuttack. The appellant then went up in revision to the High Court but his revision petition too was dismissed by the Orissa High Court. The appellant thereafter filed the present appeal by special leave. The case for the prosecution is that on July 17, 1965 Food Inspector Behera went to the stall of the accused in the Old Secretariat Compound Cuttack and found potato chops being fried by an employee of the accused in groundnut oil in a frying pan. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the accused and after giving the requisite notice, he purchased 375 gms of the groundnut oil in which the potato chops were bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court it was not disputed on behalf of the accused that the groundnut oil purchased by the Food Inspector had been taken out of the frying Dan and that potato chops were being prepared with that oil. One of the contentions which was raised on behalf of the accused before the High Court was that the sanction or consent given by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance for the prosecution of the accused was not in conformity with section 20 of the Act as the authority contemplated by that section must be in respect of each individual case and a general authority given to the Superintendent of Police to sanction prosecution was not legal. The High Court rejected this contention as also some other contentions which had been raised on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igilance Division to give written consent for instituting prosecutionfor offences under the Act within the local limits of CuttackMunicipality. The notification reads as under: HEALTH DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION The 16th December, 1964 No. 25485-H.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), the State Government do hereby authorise the following officers of the Political and Services (Vigilance) Department to give written consent for instituting prosecutions for offences under the said Act, within the local limits specified against each in respect of cases detected by the Food Inspectors attached to the concerned Vigilance Divisions:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 954 was amended by Act 49 of 1964 and as the said notification gave a general authority to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance to give consent for instituting prosecutions for offenses under the Act committed within the local limits of Cuttack Municipality, the said notification, it is urged was not in accordance with law. As against the above, Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the State has argued that there is no infirmity in the notification dated December 16, 1964 and such a notification could have been validly issued under section 20 of. the Act, as it stood before the amendment. In our opinion there is force in the submission of Mr. Chatterjee. It would appear from what has been stated above that the short question which arises fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e meaningless and lose all significance. It is, indeed, not disputed that under the amended section a general authority can be conferred upon a person for giving consent to the institution of prosecutions for offenses under the Act. The words in this behalf in sub-section (1) of section 20, as it existed before the amendment, as well as after the amendment must obviously carry the same meaning. If those words in the amended section do not postulate that the authority conferred by the State Government or local authority should have reference to a specified individual offence committed by a particular accused, we fail to understand as to how those words as used in the section before the amendment would carry a different connotation. Peru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention that the above provision instead of simplifying the matter was intended to make it needlessly more cumbersome. The change made in section 20 by Act 49 of 1964 has now put the thing beyond any, pale of controversy. Even without the change made in the section the authority conferred by the State Government or local authority upon a person for giving the consent contemplated by the section, in our opinion, could be of general nature and it was not essential that the order authorising the person should have mentioned specified individual offenses. The amendment made in this section had the effect of making more clear what was already contemplated by the section. The Madras High Court in the case of Corporation of Madras v. Arumu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
