The Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation, Calicut vs Karuvattavil Appu

P. Govinda Menon, J.—This appeal is by the Calicut Corporation against the judgment of the District Magistrate, Kozhikode acquitting the accused who was prosecuted for contravention of Rule 60 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, an offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a) of Act 37/54. That the accused is actually conducting a trade without a licence is amply proved and is in fact not disputed. The only contention was that he had applied for a licence and remitted the licence fee, but for no valid reason it was refused by the corporation. Learned District Magistrate accepted the plea and acquitted the accused on the ground that it appears that the licence was refused not on proper grounds. The order of acquittal is clearly wrong and unsustainable in law. It was for the licensing authority prescribed in Rule 50 to decide whether the requisite conditions are satisfied and whether it is a fit case for the grant of licence. If the refusal to grant licence is in the legitimate exercise of jurisdiction vested in the statutory body and passed bona fide after considering the evidence before it even if the order is wrong on the merits the criminal court cannot hold that it is wrong. It is not the function of the court to substitute its judgment as an appellate authority for that of the statutory body. In cases where the party pleads that no licence is necessary it is one of jurisdiction. But where the plea is that even though licence is necessary it has been wrongly refused on the merits the plea cannot be considered as one involving jurisdiction. The order of the learned District Magistrate has, therefore, to be vacated. I set aside the order of acquittal and find the accused guilty of the offence charged and convict and sentence him to pay a flue of Rs. 50/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Time for payment of fine one month from this dale.