Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, under section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as it stood before amendment, the State Government could validly authorise a person by a general order to grant written consent for prosecutions without referring to a specified individual offence.
Analysis: The language of the unamended provision did not require the authorisation to be tied to a particular case. The expression "in this behalf" was read as referring to the power to give written consent for prosecutions under the Act, and not as restricting the authorisation to individual offences. The provision was also viewed as intended to avoid the need for the Government or local authority to deal separately with every prosecution, so a general authorisation better served the statutory purpose. The later amendment was treated as clarifying what the section already contemplated.
Conclusion: The general authorisation contained in the notification was held to be valid, and the challenge to the prosecution on that ground failed.
Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were left undisturbed and the appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Under section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, even before amendment, the State Government or local authority could issue a general authorisation to a person to grant written consent for prosecutions under the Act without specifying an individual offence.