Skip to content


Bengalimal and anr. Vs. Rex Through Municipal Board - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. No. 391 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1950All92
ActsU.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1912 - Sections 15
AppellantBengalimal and anr.
RespondentRex Through Municipal Board
Appellant AdvocateGyanendra Kumar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGopal Behari, Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
- - it is not open to a body having once failed to institute, proceedings after the first sanction to get the period of limitation extended by getting a fresh sanction and thereby going against the provisions of section 15 of the act. the objection, therefore, was well founded......within thirty days or the date of the order. when the board discovered this error they got a fresh sanction from the medicial officer of health on 17th november 1948, and filed the complaint on 19th november 1948.3. the learned sessions judge has held that there was nothing improper in getting a fresh sanction to enable a case being filed, the time after the first date of sanction having expired. i do not agree with the view expressed by the learned judge. this would be an indirect way of nullifying the provisions of the act which require that prosecutions for contravention of the provisions of the act should be brought to the notice of the court by an early date. it is not open to a body having once failed to institute, proceedings after the first sanction to get the period of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Malik, C.J.

1. The facts of this case are not disputed. On 4th August 1948, the applicants sold some milk which was said to be adulterated. The Medical Officer of Health of the Municipal Board of Agra sanctioned the prosecution of the applicants under Section 12, U. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act on 13th October 1948. Section 15 (1) of the Act requires that

'no summons shall issue for the attendance of any person accused of an offence under Section 4 or Section 10, unless the same is applied for within thirty days from the date upon which the order or consent referred to in Section 12 shall have been made or given.'

2. For some reason or other the Municipal Board did not apply for summons within thirty days or the date of the order. When the Board discovered this error they got a fresh sanction from the Medicial Officer of Health on 17th November 1948, and filed the complaint on 19th November 1948.

3. The learned Sessions Judge has held that there was nothing improper in getting a fresh sanction to enable a case being filed, the time after the first date of sanction having expired. I do not agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge. This would be an indirect way of nullifying the provisions of the Act which require that prosecutions for contravention of the provisions of the Act should be brought to the notice of the Court by an early date. It is not open to a body having once failed to institute, proceedings after the first sanction to get the period of limitation extended by getting a fresh sanction and thereby going against the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. The objection, therefore, was well founded.

4. I, therefore, allowed this revision, set aside the order passed by the lower Courts and quash the proceedings.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //