9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (7) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtificate of the Public Analyst annexed to the complaint. The High Court rejected both these contentions. The material facts relating to this appeal are these: The accused in this case is proprietor of Khalsa Tea Stall situated in Court Road, Saharanpur. Among other things, he was selling coloured sweets. On suspicion that the sweets sold by him were adulterated, the Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Saharanpur purchased from the accused for examination some coloured sweets under a Yaddasht on May 31, 1963 and sent a portion if the same to the Public Analyst of the Government of U.P. for examination. The Public Analyst submitted his report on June 24, 1963. It reads: "See Rule 7 (3) REPORT BY THE PUBLIC ANALYST Report No. 11652. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Analyst to Govt. of U.P. Sendor's address: Public Analyst, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow The Food Inspector, c/o. Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Board, Saharanpur." On the basis of that certificate, a complaint was filed in the court of City Magistrate, Saharanpur under s. 7 read with s. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It is purported to have been filed by the Municipal Board, Saharanpur but it was signed by its Food Inspector. The accused pleaded not guilty. Various contentions were taken by the accused in support of his defence. The trial court acquitted him taking the view that as the report of the analyst did not contain any data, no conviction could be rounded on its basis and as the Yaddasht rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d no.t by the Municipal Board. The application under s. 561(A) was dismissed by the High Court as per its order of March 16, 1967 repelling the contention of the accused that the complaint had not been instituted by the Municipal Board. It further came to the conclusion that it had no power to review its own judgment. The certificate prayed for under Art. 134 of the Constitution was also refused by a separate order of the same date. Thereafter this appeal was brought after obtaining special leave. Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the appeal filed by the Municipal Board of Saharanpur before the High Court under s. 417(3), Cr. P.C. was not maintainable as the complaint from which that appeal had arisen h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could have authorised its Food Inspector to file the complaint on its behalf. Neither in the trial court, nor in the High Court at the stage of hearing of the appeal, any objection was taken by the accused as to the maintainability either of the complaint or of the appeal. Both those courts and the parties before it proceeded on the basis that the Municipal Board, Saharanpur was the complainant and its Food Inspector had filed the complaint on its behalf. It is only after the disposal of the appeal, the accused for the first time took up the contention that the Municipal Board was not the real complainant. It is true that the complaint was signed by the Food Inspector. As seen earlier it was competent for the Municipal Board to authorise h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t time an objection as regards the validity of a sanction granted in Mangaldas Raghavji and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ([1965] 2 S.C.R. 894) Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the accused urged that a permission under s. 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to file a complaint is a condition precedent for validly instituting a complaint under the provisions of that Act. The fulfilment of that condition must be satisfactorily proved by the complainant before a court can entertain the complaint. Without such a proof, the court will have no jurisdiction to try the case. In support of that contention of his he sought to take assistance from the decision of the Judicial Committee in Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file the appeal. The only other question canvassed before us is that the report of the analyst could not have afforded a valid basis for rounding the conviction as the data on the basis of which the analyst had reached his conclusion is not found in that report or otherwise made available to the court. We are unable to accept this contention 'as well. It is not correct to. say that the report does not contain the data on the basis of which the analyst came to his conclusion. The relevant data is given in the report. A report somewhat similar to the one before us was held by this Court to contain sufficient data in Mangaldas's ([1965] 2 S.C.R. 894) case referred to earlier. The correct view of the law on the subject is as stated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
