Mootham, C.J:— This is an appeal by the Municipal Board of Kanpur against, the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Kanpur dated the 23rd November, 1957, acquitting the respondent of Offences under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appeal has been referred to this Bench as the Bench by which it was originally heard found difficulty in agreeing with the view taken in Municipal Board, Lucknow v. Shyam Behari A.I.R 1960 All. 117. with regard to the effect of Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act.
2. The respondent was a seller of ghee in Kanpur, and on the 31st October, 1955, two persons, Azizuddin Siddiqi and Thakur Prasad, purporting to act as Food Inspectors purchased a sample of ghee from the respondent which was found on analysis, to be adulterated. Two complaints thereafter were filed against the respondent by the Medical Officer of Health, Kanpur. The first of these complaints was filed on the 2nd December, 1955, and alleged a contravention by the respondent of the provisions of Cl. (iii) of Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in that the respondent, on the 31st October 1955, had sold ghee without a licence as required by that Act. The second complaint was filed on the 29th February, 1956, and alleged a contravention by the respondent of Cl. (i) of Sec. 7 of the same Act in that he had on the same date exposed for sale, and sold, adulterated ghee. The two cases were subsequently consolidated and the learned Magistrate by a judgment dated the 1st October, 1956, found both the charges to be established.
3. He accordingly convicted the respondent and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and to pay a substantial fine. On appeal the respondent was acquitted of both charges by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the Medical Officer of Health had no authority to file the complaints. It is against that order that this appeal has been filed.
4. Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which came into force on the 1st June, 1955, provides that no prosecution for an offence under the Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in that behalf by the State Government or local authority. The Medical Officer of Health, Kanpur, was so authorised by a Notification dated the 16th December, 1955, and published in the Official Gazette on the 24th December following. It is clear therefore, and is not disputed before us, that he had no authority on the 2nd December 1955 to institute the prosecution of the respondent for a contravention of Cl. (iii) of Sec. 7 of the Act, and that the respondent was rightly acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of that offence.
5. It appears that the attention of the learned Sessions Judge was not drawn to the notification published on the 24th December, 1955, and he was accordingly in error in holding that the Medical Officer of Health had no authority to file the second complaint on the 29th February 1956. The correctness of his order acquitting the respondent of the charge for contravening cl. (i) of Sec. 7 is however supported on the ground that there was no admissible evidence adduced before the learned Magistrate to prove that the ghee which had been sold by the respondent on the 31st of October, 1955, was adulterated.
6. The sample of ghee which had been seized on that date was analysed by Dr. A.G Chatterji. At the trial Dr. Chatterji did not appear but a report signed by him with regard to the result of his analysis was tendered in evidence by the prosecution and admitted by the learned Magistrate under Sec. 13(5) of the Act. It is contended that report was not admissible in evidence.
7. Sec. 8 of the Act makes provision for the appointment of Public Analysts by the State Government, and sub-Sec. (5) of Sec. 13 provides that any document purporting to be a report signed by a Public Analyst (unless it has been superseded by a certificate, or by a document purporting to be a certificate, by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory) may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under the Act. The report of Dr. A.C Chatterji which was accepted by the learned Magistrate was dated the 5th February, 1956. Dr. Chatterji was not however appointed a Public Analyst until the 9th February, and his appointment was not published in the gazette until the 18th February, 1960. The question is whether he was on the date of his report a Public Analyst within the meaning of Sec. 13 of the Act.
8. Dr. Chatterji had been appointed a Public Analyst under the U.P Pure Food Act, 1950, in September 1953. It is not in dispute that Act was repealed by Sec. 25 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, but it is contended by the prosecution that notwithstanding the repeal of the Pure Food Act the appointment of Dr. Chatterji as a Public Analyst remained effective by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act and that he must be deemed to be a Public Analyst within the meaning of Sec. 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This was the view which found favour in Municipal Board, Lucknow v. Shyam Behari but with great respect we do not think it to be well-founded.
9. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act must be read as a whole, and when so read we have no doubt that the Public Analyst whose report is admissible in evidence under Sec. 13 of the Act is a Public Analyst for whose appointment provision is made in Sec. 8. The repeal of the U.P Pure Food Act had the necessary consequence of terminating the appointments of public analysts appointed under that Act unless their appointments are specifically saved; and our attention has not been invited to any provision of the new Act which would have that effect. A public Analyst is defined in the Pure Food Act as
“any person appointed by the State Government to perform the duties of a Public Analyst under this Act”
and even if it be the case that the appointment is saved by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act the only result, in our opinion, will be that Dr. A.C Chatterji will continue to be a Public Analyst under the Pure Food Act. It could not make him a Public Analyst within meaning of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. With great respect we are of opinion that the decision in Municipal Board v. Shyam Behari that a person who has been appointed a Public Analyst under the U.P Pure Food Act must be deemed a Public Analyst for the purposes of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is erroneous.
10. No other question having been raised this appeal fails and is dismissed.
11. Appeal dismissed.