https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175940 Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 permits prosecution only by the Central or State Government, by a person authorised by them by general or special order, or with written consent, and the restriction operates mandatorily. Rule 3 of the Punjab Rules and the related notification could not enlarge that statutory scheme by allowing the Food (Health) Authority to empower a Food Inspector to institute prosecutions. The Act also does not permit further sub-delegation of prosecution-authorising power, so any reading of the rule that allowed such sub-delegation would be inconsistent with the parent Act. The ratio is that subordinate legislation cannot override a statutory prohibition on who may initiate prosecution. en-us Mon, 29 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Dec 2015 11:27:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175940 Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 permits prosecution only by the Central or State Government, by a person authorised by them by general or special order, or with written consent, and the restriction operates mandatorily. Rule 3 of the Punjab Rules and the related notification could not enlarge that statutory scheme by allowing the Food (Health) Authority to empower a Food Inspector to institute prosecutions. The Act also does not permit further sub-delegation of prosecution-authorising power, so any reading of the rule that allowed such sub-delegation would be inconsistent with the parent Act. The ratio is that subordinate legislation cannot override a statutory prohibition on who may initiate prosecution. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 29 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175940