http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER: THE STATE OF BOMBAY
Vs.
RESPONDENT: PARSHOTTAM KANAIYALAL.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/08/1960
BENCH: AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA BENCH: AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA DAS, S.K. HIDAYATULLAH, M.
CITATION: 1961 AIR 1 1961 SCR (1) 458 CITATOR INFO : F 1977 SC 912 (4) R 1986 SC2160 (12)
ACT: Criminal Trial-Statute barring prosecution except with written consent of competent authority-Whether consent must be in favour of named person Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37. of 1954), S. 20(1).
HEADNOTE: A complaint was filed against the respondent by the Food Inspector for selling adulterated milk. Section 20(1) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, provided that no prosecution shall be instituted under the Act " except by, or with the written consent of, the State Government or local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority ". On the application of the Food Inspector consent in writing was given by a person authorised by the local authority. But it was contended by the respondent that the written consent was of no avail as it did not in terms name the person in whose favour it was given. Held, that where a prosecution was launched on the basis of a written consent granted by the competent person or authority, it was not necessary to name the complainant in the consent...