Local authority complaints and Public Analyst reports can sustain food adulteration prosecutions when statutory requirements are met.

A complaint instituted in the name of a local authority through its authorised Food Inspector is treated as a complaint by the local authority itself, and general authority under the food law does not require sanction-like proof or a detailed factual application of mind. Objection to the complainant's authority should be taken at the proper stage, not raised for the first time after disposal of the appeal. A Public Analyst's report is legally adequate where it contains the analytical data and result from which adulteration can be inferred; it need not set out the detailed mode of analysis. The stated effect is that such materials can support conviction under the food adulteration law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an appeal against acquittal under section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was maintainable where the complaint had been instituted in the name of a local authority through its Food Inspector; and (ii) whether the Public Analyst's report furnished a sufficient factual basis for conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Issue (i): whether an appeal against acquittal under section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was maintainable where the complaint had been instituted in the name of a local authority through its Food Inspector.

Analysis: The complainant named in the complaint was the local authority, and section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 permitted prosecution by a local authority or by a person authorised by it. A complaint signed by an officer acting on behalf of the local authority was treated as a complaint instituted by that authority. The objection to authority was not raised at the proper stage, and the court declined to entertain it for the first time after disposal of the appeal. The argument that a sanction-like proof was required was rejected because section 20 conferred a general authority to institute complaints and did not involve application of mind to the facts of a particular case as in sanction cases.

Conclusion: The appeal filed by the local authority was maintainable, and this contention failed.

Issue (ii): whether the Public Analyst's report furnished a sufficient factual basis for conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Analysis: The report contained the relevant analytical data and not merely the final opinion. The court held that under the statutory scheme the report need not set out the mode or particulars of analysis so long as it discloses the result and the data from which adulteration can be inferred. The report was therefore treated as legally adequate material for supporting conviction.

Conclusion: The Public Analyst's report was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and this contention failed.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and the accused was required to undergo the sentence imposed by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a prosecution complaint is instituted in the name of a local authority through an authorised officer, the complaint is treated as one by the local authority itself, and a Public Analyst's report is sufficient if it contains the analytical data enabling a finding of adulteration, without requiring the detailed mode of analysis.

---