Bose Vs. Shri A.B. Roy & Anr  Insc 184 (5 April 2002)
Mohapatra & Brijesh Kumar D.P.Mohapatra,J.
appeal filed by the accused is directed against the order passed by the High
Court at Calcutta dismissing the application filed by him under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure ('Crl. P.C.' for short) and confirming the order
passed by the Senior Municipal Magistrate declining to accept his prayer for
discharge in Complaint Case No.44-D of 1978. The application filed by the
appellant under Sections 245(2) and 245(3) Cr. P.C. for discharge was dismissed
by the learned Magistrate.
criminal case was instituted against the appellant and some others alleging the
commission of the offence punishable under Section 16(1) (a)(i) read with
Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'P.F.A.
Act'), on the allegation that he was selling adulterated tea leaves. The case
of the prosecution was that the Food Inspector inspected the shop/godown/ factory
of M/s Brook Bond India Ltd. on 5.4.1978 and collected some samples of tea
Grade PD-1. The said samples on analysis by the Public Analyst were found not
conforming to the prescribed standard in respect of crude fibre content in the
Tea and was found to be adulterated.
complaint was filed against the appellant after obtaining consent from the
District Health officer IV (South West), Municipal Corporation of Calcutta. The Learned Magistrate on perusal
of the complaint and the materials produced by the complainant, took cognizance
of the offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the P.F.A. Act
and issued process against the accused persons in May, 1978.
consideration of the application filed by the appellant and other accused
persons for discharge from prosecution, the learned Magistrate by the order
passed on 25.08.1981 discharged the accused company M/s Brook Bond India
Limited and Shri P.K. Banerjee, the Manager of the company from the prosecution
but rejected the prayer of the appellant. The Revision Petition filed by the
appellant challenging the said order was dismissed by the High Court by order
dated 22.12.1986. The appellant filed special leave petition, SLP(Crl.) 832/87
before this Court challenging the order of the High Court. The said SLP was
later withdrawn by the appellant.
the appellant filed an application under Sections 245(2) and 245(3) Cr. P.C. on
2.2.95 seeking discharge from prosecution on the grounds of delay in concluding
the trial and want of a valid order giving consent for launching the
prosecution against him. The learned Senior Municipal Magistrate rejected the
application by the order dated 23.6.1995.
appellant challenged the order by filing the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
in the High Court which was registered as C.R.R.No.1978 of 1995. The High Court
by the order dated 14.11.2000 dismissed the said petition with a direction for
expeditious disposal of the case by the trial court. Hence this appeal.
19.11.2001 when the case was taken up the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted that he will not be pressing the question of delay in trial
of the case. In view of the said order the only question that remains for
consideration relates to the validity or otherwise of the order granting
consent for the prosecution against the appellant.
main thrust of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant was that
Dr. K.B.S. Chakraborty, District Health Officer-IV, Local (Health) Authority
who had given consent for filing the complaint by the order dated 30.5.78 was
not competent to accord such consent under the P.F.A. Act. He placed strong
reliance on the judgment dated 14.2.1983, of the Calcutta High Court in the
Criminal Revision Nos. 1275-1276 of 1982 titled Rasiklal Saxena vs. The State
of West Bengal in which the High Court took the view that the Health Officer
Calcutta Corporation was the only person competent to give consent for filing a
complaint under the P.F.A.Act and that the District Health Officer-II and
District Health Officer IV have no such authority for the purpose. Elucidating
the point the learned counsel submitted that the Calcutta Corporation is split
up into different districts and the District Health Officers are kept in-charge
of each District;
another officer who is designated as Health Officer of Calcutta Corporation.
According to the learned counsel it is the latter officer who is authorised for
according consent for prosecution under Section 20(1) of the P.F.A. Act. The
District Health Officers in-charge of different Districts are not authorised
for the purpose.
contra learned counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that on a fair
reading of the relevant provisions of the P.F.A. Act the Calcutta Municipal
Act, 1951 and the notifications issued under Section 20(1) of the P.F.A.Act it
is clear that the District Health Officers of the Calcutta Corporation are authorised
to give consent for filing complaints within their respective areas. Referring
to column-II of the notification No.PII/213/3F-15/76 dated 25.1.1978 the
learned counsel contended that the Health Officer-in-charge of every District
of the Calcutta Corporation is authorised under the notification to exercise
the power of granting consent for prosecution under Section 20(1). He further
contended that if it was the intention of the State Government that only the
Health Officer of the Calcutta Corporation should exercise the power of
granting consent under Section 20(1) then the entry in column-II of Item No.3
of the notification which reads "the area comprised in every District or
areas added to the Calcutta Corporation" will be redundant.
the expression "Health Officer" in column-I of item No.3 of the
notification, learned counsel contended that the words in singular includes the
plural and vice versa as provided in Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act,
will be convenient to notice some statutory provisions relevant for
appreciating the point raised in the case before dealing with the merit of the
Section 2(vii) of the P.F.A. Act "local area" means any area, whether
urban or rural, declared by the Central Government or the State Government by
notification in the Official Gazette, to be a local area for the purposes of
this Act. Under Section 2(viii) "local authority" means, a local area
which is (a) a municipality, the municipal board or municipal corporation. In
Section 2(viiia) the expression "Local (Health) Authority" in
relation to a local area is defined to mean the Officer appointed by the
Central Government or the State Government, by notification in the Official
Gazette, to be in-charge of Health administration in such area with such
designation as may be specified therein.
Section 20 PFA Act provision is made regarding cognizance and trial of offences
which reads as follows:
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 recognized 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." In Section 76 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951
(West Bengal Act XXXIII of 1951) (CM Act for short) it is laid down that the State
Government shall appoint a person to be the Finance Officer and the Chief
Accountant of the Corporation and the Corporation shall appoint proper persons
to be the Chief Engineer, Health Officer and the Secretary and may appoint one
or more Deputy Commissioners. It is relevant to state here that in the C.M. Act
neither the expression "Health Officer" nor "District Health
Officer" is defined.
Government of West Bengal issued three notifications on 25.1.1978 which are
relevant for the purpose of the present case. By the Notification
No.PII/211/3F-15/76 dated 25.1.1978 issued in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (vii) of Section 2 of the P.F.A.Act and in supersession of all
previous notifications on the subject, the Governor has been pleased to declare
certain areas as local areas as mentioned in the Schedule for the purposes of
the P.F.A. Act. In clause 3 of the said notification, it is stated that the
area comprised in every district or the area added to, the Calcutta Corporation
will be a local area as described in Schedule I to the C.M.Act.
notification No.PII/212/3F-15/76 dated 25.1.78 the Governor of West Bengal in
exercise of power conferred by clause (viii-a) of Section 2 of the P.F.A.Act
has appointed officers as mentioned in column I of the Schedule as the Local
(Health) Authority in relation to the Local Areas declared in notification
No.PII/211/3F-15/76 dated 25.1.78 each in column II of the said schedule to be
in charge of the Health Administration in such areas as noted in column II of
the said schedule. Against item No.3(1)(v) therein it is stated that the Health
Officer, District No.IV of the Corporation of Calcutta shall be the Local
(Health) Authority in-charge of the areas comprised within District No.IV of
the Calcutta Corporation.
another notification issued on 25.1.78 PII/213/3F-15/76 the Governor in
exercise of power conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the P.F.A. Act
and in supersession of the Department's notification dated 2nd July, 1976
appointed the authorised officers specified in column I of the schedule in
respect of the Local Area specified in column II of the said schedule as the
authority for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 20.
item No.3 therein it has been stated "Health Officer of the Corporation of
Calcutta" in relation to the areas comprised in every District of, or
areas added to, the Calcutta Corporation.
question formulated earlier is to be considered in the light of the statutory
provisions and the notifications applicable to the matter. As noted earlier,
the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that under the
notification issued by the Governor of West Bengal on 25.1.78 the Health
Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta is the only person authorised to grant
consent for launching prosecution under Section 20(1) of the P.F.A. Act.
the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties,
we are of the view that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
Corporation is to be accepted. While issuing the notifications if the intention
of the authority was to vest the power to accord consent for launching
prosecution under Section 20(1) of the P.F.A. Act, then it would have been so
stated in column-II against item No.3 of the notification, 'the areas comprised
in or areas added to, the Calcutta Corporation' instead of 'the areas comprised
in every District of the Calcutta Corporation'. If the entire Corporation was
to be taken as one unit for the purpose of vesting power under Section 20(1)
P.F.A. Act then reference to every District was redundant. For ascertaining the
intention of the authority issuing the notification the entry should be read in
a portion of the notification which will result in rendering the other portion
redundant should be avoided.
matter can also be viewed from another angle. If the area of the Corporation
has been split up into different Districts for convenience of administration,
then it is reasonable to think that the State Government intended to delegate
the power under Section 20(1) of the PFA Act to the Health Officers in-charge
of the Districts. The necessity to deal with matters relating to accord of
consent under Section 20(1) for launching prosecution against persons allegedly
involved in offences under the P.F.A. Act is important keeping in view the
menace of food adulteration in society. Every effort should be made to
eradicate such a menace for the sake of a healthy society.
the interpretation that each District Health Officer is authorised to exercise
the power under Section 20(1) to accord consent under Section 20(1) P.F.A. Act
in respect of the respective District in his charge appears to us to be more
rational and in keeping with the purpose of delegation of the power of the
to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rasiklal Saxena vs. The State of
West Bengal (supra) on which strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for
the appellant, we find that the High Court has not properly considered the
notification No.PII/213/3F-15/76 dated 25.1.78 while holding that the District
Health Officers have no authority to grant consent for launching prosecution
under Section 20(1) of the P.F.A. Act. The decision is erroneous and it is
declared as no longer good law.
High Court in the order under challenge did not disturb the view taken in the
earlier decision in Rasiklal Saxena vs. The State of West Bengal (supra) and
decided the case against the appellant and in favour of the Corporation
applying the 'de facto doctrine'. It was fairly stated by the learned counsel
appearing for the Corporation that the said doctrine has no application in the
case. If the authority who granted consent for launching prosecution was not
vested with such power under the statute then question of applying the 'de
facto doctrine' to the order passed by such authority does not arise. However,
as we have not accepted the contention raised on behalf of the appellant on
merits of the case and have taken the view that the District Health Officer is
competent to pass the order granting consent for prosecution, the order of
dismissal of the Revision Petition filed by the appellant is to be maintained.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed though for reasons different from those
given in the impugned order.