TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Administrator's Power to Sanction Prosecution Upheld Under Food Adulteration Act</h1> <h3>Jagneshwar Sen Gupta Versus Bimal Kanti Paul</h3> The High Court held that the Administrator of the Agartala Municipality had the power to sanction the prosecution under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the Administrator of the Agartala Municipality had the power under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to sanction the prosecution.2. Validity of the supersession of the Agartala Municipality and appointment of the Administrator.3. Interpretation of the term 'local authority' under Section 2(viii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the Administrator of the Agartala Municipality had the power under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to sanction the prosecution:The core issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator had the authority to sanction the prosecution under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Sessions Judge had previously ruled that the Administrator did not have this power, relying on the decision in 'Administrator, Howrah Municipality v. Messrs. Byron Co.' (1958 Cr. LJ 169(2) (Cal)). This decision held that an Administrator appointed under Section 554 of the Bengal Municipal Act could only exercise powers under that Act and not under any other Act. However, the High Court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that Section 293(kha) of the Tripura Municipal Act did not have such limitations. The High Court concluded that the Administrator, upon supersession, could exercise all powers and duties that the Commissioners could have exercised, including those under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Thus, the written consent given by the Administrator was valid.2. Validity of the supersession of the Agartala Municipality and appointment of the Administrator:The respondent argued that the notification superseding the Agartala Municipality was invalid as it did not comply with Section 292 of the Tripura Municipal Act. The notification did not explicitly state that the Commissioners were inefficient or had defaulted, nor did it provide reasons for the supersession. However, the High Court noted that the notification referred to a grave emergency due to the en bloc resignation of the Commissioners. The Court found that such a situation could be interpreted as persistent default, justifying the supersession under Section 292. Furthermore, the Court observed that the respondent did not challenge the validity of the supersession during the trial or in the Sessions Court, raising it for the first time in the High Court. The High Court thus upheld the validity of the supersession and the appointment of the Administrator.3. Interpretation of the term 'local authority' under Section 2(viii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act:The term 'local authority' under Section 2(viii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act includes a Municipality, Municipal Board, or Municipal Corporation. The High Court had to determine whether the Administrator, appointed after the supersession of the Commissioners, could be considered the 'local authority.' The Sessions Judge had ruled that the Administrator did not qualify as a local authority. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that upon supersession, the Administrator steps into the shoes of the Commissioners and assumes their powers and duties. Therefore, the Administrator was deemed the local authority capable of sanctioning prosecutions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the Administrator of the Agartala Municipality had the power to sanction the prosecution under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The supersession of the Municipality and the appointment of the Administrator were valid. The Administrator, as the local authority, had the authority to give written consent for prosecution. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal of the respondent, convicted him under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
