H. Rajput Vs. Bhartiben Pravinbhai Soni & Ors  INSC 750 (28 November 1995)
K.Ramaswamy, K.Majmudar S.B. (J)
1996 SCC (7) 199 JT 1995 (9) 210 1995 SCALE (7)217
No.1613/95 @ SLP [Crl.] No.1924/92, Crl. A.No.1614/95 @ SLP [Crl.] No.1987/92, Crl.A.
No.1615/95 @ SLP [Crl.] No.1961/92, Crl.A. No.1616/95 @ SLP [Crl.] No.1960/92, Crl.A.
No. 1617/95 @ SLP [Crl.] No. 2373/93, Crl. A. No. 1618/95 @ SLP [Crl.]
No.2374/93, and Crl.A. No.1619/95 @ SLP [Crl.] No.2295/92
O R D
in Criminal Appeal @ SLP [Crl.] No.1755 of 1992 would be sufficient for
disposal of all the appeals.
On June 4, 1986, the appellant-Food Inspector
inspected the premises of the respondent and purchased pasteurized toned milk
in the presence of witnesses. He divided samples in three bottles and gave one
of them to the respondent. He took with him two samples of which one was
deposited with the court and the other was sent to the analyst. Report of the
analyst indicated that the milk was adulterated.
the local Health authority on June 7, 1986
granted sanction under Section 20  of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [for
short, "the Act"] for laying the complaint against the respondent. In
furtherance thereof, on June
7, 1986, a complaint
was laid under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act against the
respondent. The Magistrate by order dated February 8, 1991 acquitted the respondent on the
ground that the consent given by the local health authority was not valid in
law, though he found on merits in favour of the prosecution. On appeal filed by
the appellant under Section 378  of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
the High Court by order dated October 28, 1991
refused leave and confirmed the acquittal. Thus these appeals by special leave.
20  of the Act provides thus :
Congnizance and trial of offences.
No prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being an offence under
Section 14 or Section 14-A, shall be instituted except by, or with the written
consent of, the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised
in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the
State Government :
that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by a
purchaser or recognised consumer association referred to in Section 12, if he
or it produces in court a copy of the report of the public analyst along with
the complaint." A reading of Section 20  clearly indicates that before
laying the prosecution for an offence under the Act, not being an offence under
s.14A, the condition precedent is that written consent of the Central
Government or the State Government or the person authorised in this behalf by
general or special order by the appropriate Government is mandatory.
not in dispute that the local health authority has been designated with the
power to accord sanction for laying the prosecution under the Act. Material
portion of the consent order reads thus:
hereby give consent to the Food Inspector Shri S.H. Rajput to prosecute (name
of the accused was mentioned in each case) x x x For contravening the provision
of Food Adulteration Act 1954 as alleged in the above report of the Food
consent is given after going through the analysis report of public Analyst and
other pertinent papers and documents and the nature of offence committed by the
alleged offenders, as required by Section 20 of the Food Adulteration Act
1954." It would thus be clear that the sanctioning authority, viz., local
health authority had considered the report of the public Analyst and other
pertinent papers and the documents which contained the report of the Food
Inspector and thereafter accorded sanction to prosecute the respondent.
question that emerges is whether the sanction is in accordance with law. The
learned Magistrate held that the sanction was a cyclostyled order and that the
authority did not apply its mind to the facts constituting the offence and
that, therefore, the grant of sanction is invalid in law. We find it difficult
to give acceptance to the reasoning of the learned Magistrate. Unfortunately,
the learned single Judge of the High Court did not apply his mind nor adverted
to any of the material questions. He merely concurred with the view expressed
by the Magistrate in a cryptic order. In fact, on merits, the learned
Magistrate has held that the prosecution had established the offence. All that
was held was that the sanction was not in accordance with Section 20  of the
counsel for the respondents sought to rely on the decision of this Court in
A.K. Roy & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1984) 4 SCC 326]. That was a case where sub- delegation
was made by the Local [Health] Authority to the Food Inspector for laying the
prosecution. It was not a case of granting any sanction by him. In fact, this
Court had pointed out in paragraph 9 that "it is common ground that the
prosecution in the instant case has not been launched either by or with the written
consent of the Central Government or the State Government. It, therefore,
becomes necessary to ascertain whether the Food Inspector, Faridkot was duly authorised
to launch a prosecution". Then this Court had examined the question and
held in paragraph 11 that "the terms of Section 20  of the Act do not
postulate further delegation by the person so authorised; he can only give his
consent in writing when he is satisfied that a prima facie case exists in the
facts of a particular case and records his reasons for the launching of such
prosecution in the public interest". In other words, this Court had held
that the local (Health) authority has no power to delegate the power to launch
prosecution to the Food Inspector, but in terms of Section 20 , the authority
can give its consent in writing when it is satisfied that prima facie case
exists in the facts of a particular case for laying the prosecution.
State of Bombay v. Parshottam Kanaiyalal [(1961) 1 SCR 458], far from helping
the respondents, this Court at page 461 held that "this sanction is
accorded after going through Milk Analysts Report and other pertinent documents
and the nature of offence committed by each of the above person as required by
Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954". This Court
had approved the sanction given by the local (Health) authority of this very
Municipality in this case and it was held that it is not necessary that the
name of the offender should be indicated in the sanction order. After this judgment,
to avoid further protraction, the Form was revised and the name of the offender
and the authority to whom sanction is given have been expressly specified in
the sanction order.
State of Bihar v, P.P. Sharma [(1992) Supp. 1 SCC
222], one of us, [K. Ramaswamy, J.] considered the effect of the sanction under
Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code at page 268 thus :
is equally well settled that before granting sanction the authority or the
appropriate Government must have before it the necessary report and the
material facts which prima facie establish the commission of offence charged
for and that the appropriate Government would apply their mind to those facts.
The order of sanction is only an administrative act and not a quasi-judicial
one nor is a lis involved. Therefore, the order of sanction need not contain
detailed reasons in support thereof as was contended by Sri Jain. But the basic
facts that constitute the offence must be apparent on the impugned order and
the record must bear out the reasons in that regard." It is seen that the
analysis report which was placed before the local (Health) authority and the
other pertinent material in connection therewith have been placed before the
sanctioning authority. After going through the material, sanction was granted
for laying the prosecution. At that stage, it was not for the sanctioning
authority to weigh pros and cons and then to find whether the case could end in
conviction or acquittal or the adulteration was abnormal or marginal etc. All these
are not matters for the sanctioning authority to weigh and to consider the pros
and cons of the case before granting sanction to lay prosecution against the
from this perspective, we hold that the learned Magistrate was not right in law
in holding that the sanction granted under Section 20  is not valid in law.
appeal @ SLP [Crl.] No.1924 of 1992, the learned Magistrate had further held
that the Food Inspector did not have training for required number of days and
that, therefore, he was not competent to take the samples. We find that the
Magistrate illegally proceeded on that assumption.
qualifications of the Food Inspector cannot be challenged in collateral
proceedings. What is material is whether the Food Inspector had taken the
samples in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the rules made there under.
In case the Court finds that if he committed any contravention, what would be
its effect on the prosecution is a matter to be considered but his
qualifications cannot be looked into when he lays the prosecution for
adulteration of the articles of food under the Act.
from this perspective, the only question that remains to be considered is
whether these are fit cases for interference. At this belated stage, in the
facts and circumstances of the cases, we think that it would not be proper
under Article 142 to interfere. This should not be treated as a precedent in
appeals are accordingly disposed of.