Skip to content


Public Prosecutor Vs. Ponnappan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal;Food Adulteration
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 762 of 1956
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Mad741; 1957CriLJ1295
ActsFood Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sectionm 14(1); Madras Public Health Act, 1939 - Sections 16
AppellantPublic Prosecutor
RespondentPonnappan
Appellant AdvocatePublic Prosecutor
Respondent AdvocateN.S. Raghavan, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....under the food adulteration act, central act 37 of 1954. the prosecution was launched by the health officer, erode municipality, for the respondent being in possession of adulterated milk for the purpose of sale. the purchase of the milk for the purpose of test was on 22nd december 1955. the act under which the respondent was prosecuted came into force on 1st june 1955. under section 20 of the act there shall be no prosecution for an offence under this act except by or with the written consent of the state government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the state government or a local authority. the local authority is defined under section 2, clause (viii) as meaning a municipality, the municipal board or municipal corporation, the local area, as found in.....
Judgment:

Somasundaram, J.

1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent herein for an offence under the Food Adulteration Act, Central Act 37 of 1954. The prosecution was launched by the Health Officer, Erode Municipality, for the respondent being in possession of adulterated milk for the purpose of sale. The purchase of the milk for the purpose of test was on 22nd December 1955. The Act under which the respondent was prosecuted came into force on 1st June 1955. Under Section 20 of the Act there shall be no prosecution for an offence under this Act except by or with the written consent of the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority. The local authority is defined under Section 2, Clause (viii) as meaning a municipality, the municipal board or municipal corporation, the local area, as found in Sub-clause (1) (a) of Clause (viii) of Section 2. The Health Officer in this case was no doubt authorised by G. O. No. 542, P. H., dated 14th February 1956. The prosecution in this case was before the authorisation by the Government. Previous to this there was another Government Order, G. O, No. 1635, P. H., of 1941, under which the Health Officer in the case of a municipality' was empowered to exercise all the powers under Sections 9, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 28 of the Madras Public Health Act (Act III of 1939). Under Section 16 of the Madras Public Health Act the Health Officer can exercise the functions only under any of the Acts mentioned therein, and Central Act 37 of 1954 is not one of the Acts mentioned therein, and, therefore, the authorisation under Section 16 of the Madras Public Health Act would not avail for the purpose of prosecution. This being not a prosecution launched by the municipality or with the written consent of the municipality, it is invalid. The lower Court was, therefore, justified in acquitting the accused. The appeal is dismissed.


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