Keshav Mohan vs State of U.P. and Another

J.C. Gupta, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant in revision and learned A.G.A. for the State. With the consent of the parties'' counsel, this revision is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

This revision is directed against the order dated 15.3.2001 passed by A.C.J.M. Ist, Allahabad in Case No. 713 of 2001, State v. Pappu and another, under Sections 16(1) (c), 7(1) and Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It is stated in the affidavit that the applicant came to know of the impugned order on 23.7.2001 and thereafter he applied for certified copy and filed this revision on 8.8.2001. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, the revision is within time from the date of knowledge of the impugned order. It is well-settled that period of limitation starts from the date of knowledge of the order. The revision is thus treated as within time.

On merit, the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the complaint in question has been filed to prosecute the applicant for contravening the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 50 (1) of the Rules and there committing an offence punishable u/s 16(1) (c) of the Act. Sanction order dated 22.2.2001 indicates that the permission was granted to prosecute the applicant u/s 7 read with Rule 50 (1) punishable u/s 16(1) (b) of the Act. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Mool Chand 1981 FAJ 328, it is submitted by the applicant''s counsel that on the basis of sanction order in question, the applicant could not be prosecuted as there was no sanction to prosecute him u/s 7 read with Section 16(1) (c) of the Act. In the case of Mool Chand (supra), it was held that if in a complaint filed by the Food Inspector u/s 7(1) (iii) it was mentioned that the report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample of mustard oil contained 30.3 per cent of linseed oil and the Respondent did not have the licence for selling mustard oil, he was, therefore, guilty u/s 7/16 of the Act. The written consent was given by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari for the prosecution of the Respondent u/s 16 of the Act for the breach of Section 7(1) (iii) of the Act read with Rule 50 of the Rules. No consent was given by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari for the prosecution of the Respondent u/s 7/16 of the Act for breach of Rule 44 (e) of the Rules. On these facts, it was held that if written consent is given by the authority concerned for the prosecution of a specified offence, no prosecution for a different offence can take place, in view of Section 20(1) of the Act. Reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in State of Bombay v. Parshottam Kanaiyalal 1979 FAJ 407.

In the present case, the Court finds that Nagar Swasthya Adhikari by the order dated 22.2.2001, has granted sanction to prosecute the applicant in revision for contravention of provisions of Section 7 read with Rule 50 (1) punishable u/s 16(1) (b) of the Act. There is no written consent or sanction of Nagar Swasthya Adhikari to prosecute the applicant in revision u/s 7 read with Section 16(1) (c) of the Act for which the applicant has been summoned by the learned Magistrate. The instant prosecution of the applicant is on its face value illegal. Accordingly, the summoning order as well as the proceedings pending against the applicant before the learned Magistrate are quashed.

However, it is made clear that it shall be open for the sanctioning authority to grant afresh sanction and prosecute the applicant afresh in accordance with law, if he deems it necessary. The revision is accordingly disposed of.