Criminal Appeal No 122 of 1967
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 18 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No 1642 of 1964
RK Garg SCAgarwal Sumitra Chakravarty and Uma Dutt for the appellant
OP Rana for respondent No 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde J
Two contentions advanced in this appeal by special leave are 1 that the appeal filed by the Municipal Board Saharanpur before the High Court of Allahabad under section 4173 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not maintainable in law and 2 the accused could not have been convicted on the strength of the certificate of the Public Analyst annexed to the complaint
The High Court rejected both these contentions
The material facts relating to this appeal are these The accused in this case is proprietor of Khalsa Tea Stall situated in Court Road Saharanpur
Among other things he was selling coloured sweets
On suspicion that the sweets sold by him were adulterated the Food Inspector Municipal Board Saharanpur purchased from the accused for examination some coloured sweets under a Yaddasht on May 31 1963 and sent a portion if the same to the Public Analyst of the Government of UP for examination
The Public Analyst submitted his report on June 24 1963
It reads See Rule 7  3  REPORT BY THE PUBLIC ANALYST Report No 11652
I hereby certify that I Dr RS Srivastava Public Analyst for Uttar Pradesh duly appointed under the provisions of the  received on the 4th day of June 1963 from the 738 Food Inspector co Medical Officer of Health Municipal Board Saharanpur a sample of coloured sweet Patisa prepared in Vanaspati No 264 for analysis properly sealed and fastened and that I found the seal intact and unbroken
I further certify that I have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample and declare the result of the analysis to be as follows Test for the presence of coal tar dye  Positive
Coal tar dye identified  Metanil yellow
colour Index No 138 ANALYTICAL DATA IN RESPECT OF FAT OR OIL USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE SAMPLE
Butyro refractometer reading at 40 dgree C  505
Melting point  3380C 3
Baudouin s test for the presence of Til oil Positive
Tintometer reading on Lovibond Scale 40 Red Units plus 01 yellow unit coloured with a coal tar dye namely Metanil Yellow Colour Index No 138 which is not one of the coal tar dyes permitted for use in foodstuffs under rule No 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955
No chance had taken place in the constitutents of the sample which would have interfered with analysis
Signed this 24th day of June 1963
The sample belongs to  section DHIAN SINGH SO JIWAN SINGH RS Srivastava MSc LLB PhD Lond PRLC Public Analyst to Govt
of UP Sendor s address Public Analyst Uttar Pradesh Lucknow The Food Inspector co
Medical Officer of Health Municipal Board Saharanpur
 739 On the basis of that certificate a complaint was filed in the court of City Magistrate Saharanpur under section 7 read with section 16 of the 
It is purported to have been filed by the Municipal Board Saharanpur but it was signed by its Food Inspector
The accused pleaded not guilty
Various contentions were taken by the accused in support of his defence
The trial court acquitted him taking the view that as the report of the analyst did not contain any data no conviction could be rounded on its basis and as the Yaddasht relating to the sale had not been attested as required by law the seizure in question must be held to be invalid
As against that decision the Municipal Board of Saharanpur went up in appeal to the High Court under section 4173 Cr
PC the High Court allowed the appeal disagreeing with the trial court on both the questions of law referred to earlier
It came to the conclusion that the analyst had given the necessary data hence his report afforded sufficient basis for conviction
It further opined that the fact that the Yaddasht had not been attested by the witnesses of the locality did not vitiate the seizure made
At the hearing of the appeal no objection about the maintainability of the appeal was taken
The judgment of the High Court was rendered on April 18 1966
The High Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months
and to pay a fine of Rs 100  in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month
On April 28 1966 the accused field an application for certificate under article 134 of the Constitution
On May 4 1966 when the application filed under article 134 of the Constitution for certificate was still pending the accused moved the High Court under section 561 A Cr
PC for reviewing its judgment dated April 18 1966 principally on the ground that the appeal filed by the Municipal Board was not maintainable under section 4173 Cr
PC as the complaint had been instituted by the  Food Inspector and not by the Municipal Board
The application under section 561A was dismissed by the High Court as per its order of March 16 1967 repelling the contention of the accused that the complaint had not been instituted by the Municipal Board
It further came to the conclusion that it had no power to review its own judgment
The certificate prayed for under article 134 of the Constitution was also refused by a separate order of the same date
Thereafter this appeal was brought after obtaining special leave
Mr Garg learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the appeal filed by the Municipal Board of Saharanpur before the High Court under section 4173 Cr
PC was not maintainable as the complaint from which that appeal had arisen had been instituted by the Food Inspector
Section 4173 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that if an order of acquittal 740 is passed in any case instituted upon complaint the High Court may grant to the complainant special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal
It is clear from that section that special leave under that provision can only be granted to the complainant and to no one else
It may be noted that in this case no appeal against acquittal had been filed by the State
Hence the essential question for consideration is whether the complainant before the Magistrate was the Municipal Board of Saharanpur  The complainant shown in the complaint is the Municipal Board of Saharanpur but the complaint was signed by the Food Inspector
Section 20 of the prescribes that no prosecution for an offence under that Act should be instituted except by or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority
There is no dispute that the Municipal Board is a local authority
Hence it was competent to file a complaint
It was also competent for that board to authorise someone else to file complaints under the on its behalf
As seen earlier the complaint purports to have been filed by the Municipal Board
That Board could have authorised its Food Inspector to file the complaint on its behalf
Neither in the trial court nor in the High Court at the stage of hearing of the appeal any objection was taken by the accused as to the maintainability either of the complaint or of the appeal
Both those courts and the parties before it proceeded on the basis that the Municipal Board Saharanpur was the complainant and its Food Inspector had filed the complaint on its behalf
It is only after the disposal of the appeal the accused for the first time took up the contention that the Municipal Board was not the real complainant
It is true that the complaint was signed by the Food Inspector
As seen earlier it was competent for the Municipal Board to authorise him to file the Complaint
The question whether he was authorised by the Municipal Board to file the complaint was never put into issue
Both the parties to the complaint proceeded on the basis that it was a validly instituted complaint
If the Municipal Board had not authorised him to file the complaint then the complaint itself was not maintainable
If that is so no question of the invalidity of the appeal arises for consideration
It was never the case of the accused that the complaint was invalid
In KC Aggarwal vs Delhi Administration1 this Court has held that a complaint filed by one of the officers of a local authority  at the instance of that authority is in law a complaint institut 1 Criminal Appeal No 100 of 1966 decided on 27th May 1969 741 ed by that local authority
Therefore if the Complaint with which we are concerned in this case had been filed by the Food Inspector on the authority of local board the complaint must be held to have been instituted by the local board itself
The question whether the Food Inspector had authority to file the complaint on behalf of the local board is a question of fact
Official acts must be deemed to have been done according to law
If the accused had challenged the authority of the Food Inspector to file the complaint the trial court would have gone into that question
The accused cannot be permitted to take up that contention for the first time after the disposal of the appeal
This Court refused to entertain for the first time an objection as regards the validity of a sanction granted in Mangaldas Raghavji and Anr
vs State of Maharashtra and Anr
1 Mr Garg learned Counsel for the accused urged that a permission under section 20 of the to file a complaint is a condition precedent for validly instituting a complaint under the provisions of that Act
The fulfilment of that condition must be satisfactorily proved by the complainant before a court can entertain the complaint
Without such a proof the court will have no jurisdiction to try the case
In support of that contention of his he sought to take assistance from the decision of the Judicial Committee in Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka vs The King2 and Madan Mohan Singh vs The State of UP3
Both those decisions deal with the question of the validity of sanctions given for the institution of certain criminal proceedings
The provisions under which sanction was sought in those cases required the sanctioning authority to apply its mind and find out whether there was any justification for instituting the prosecutions
The Judicial Committee as well as this Court has laid down that in such cases the court must be satisfied either from the order of sanction or from the other evidence that all the relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and that authority had granted the sanction after applying its mind to those facts
The ratio of those decisions has no bearing on the facts of this case
Under section 20 of the  no question of applying one s mind to the facts of the case before the institution of the complaint arises as the authority to be conferred under that provision can be conferred long before a particular offence has taken place
It is a conferment of an authority to institute a particular case or even a class of cases
That section merely prescribes that persons or authorities designated in that section are alone competent to file complaints under the statute in question
1  2 75 IAp 30
3 AIR 1954 SC 736
742 For the reasons mentioned above we are unable to accept the contention of the accused that the Municipal Board of Saharanpur was not competent to file the appeal
The only other question canvassed before us is that the report of the analyst could not have afforded a valid basis for rounding the conviction as the data on the basis of which the analyst had reached his conclusion is not found in that report or otherwise made available to the court
We are unable to accept this contention as well
It is not correct to
say that the report does not contain the data on the basis of which the analyst came to his conclusion
The relevant data is given in the report
A report somewhat similar to the one before us was held by this Court to contain sufficient data in Mangaldas s1 case referred to earlier
The correct view of the law on the subject is as stated in the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur vs Sri Ram2 wherein it is observed that the report of the public analyst under section 13 of the need not contain the mode or particulars of analysis nor the test applied but should contain the result of analysis namely data from which it can be inferred whether the article of food was or was not adulterated as defined in section 2 1  of the Act
 In the result the appeal fails and the same is dismissed
The appellant is on bail
He should surrender to his bail and serve the sentence imposed on him
YP Appeal dismissed
1  2 1963 All
LJ 765


Summary:
On a report of the Public Analyst that the coloured sweets sold by the appellant were adulterated a complaint was filed before the Magistrate under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
The trial court acquitted the appellant
In appeal by the Municipal Board under section 4173 Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court convicted the appellant
The appellant did not raise any objection as to the maintainability of the complaint or of the appeal either in the trial court or in the High Court before the appeal was disposed of on the ground that the Municipal Board was shown as the complainant and the complaint was signed by its Food Inspector
In appeal to this Court it was contended that i the appeal filed by the Municipal Board in the High Court was not maintainable in law as the complaint had been instituted by the Food Inspector and not by the Municipal Board ii a permission under section 20 of the Act was a condition precedent for validly instituting a complaint and the fulfilment of that condition had to be satisfactorily proved before the Court could exercise jurisdiction to try the case and iii the appellant could not have been convicted on the strength of the certificate of the Public Analyst
HELD Dismissing the appeal i Under section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act it was competent for the Municipal Board to authorise the Food Inspector to file the complaint
If the complaint had been filed by the Food Inspector on the authority of the Board the complaint must be held to have been instituted by the Board itself
The question whether the Food Inspector was so authorised is a question of fact
This was never put into issue and both the courts below and the parties before them proceeded on the basis that the Municipal Board was the complainant and the Food Inspector filed the complaint on its behalf
The appellant could not therefore be permitted to take up the contention for the first time after the appeal was disposed of in the High Court
741 A C KC Aggarwal vs Delhi Administration Cr A No 100 of 1966 dt
27 5 1969 referred to
ii There is no analogy between the section and those provisions requiring sanction for the institution of certain criminal proceedings
Under the section no question of applying one s mind to the facts of the case before the institution of complaint arises as the authority under the section can be conferred long before a particular offence has taken place
It is a conferment of an authority to institute a particular case or even a class of cases
741 G 737 Gokal Chand Dwarkadas vs The King 75 IA 30 and Madan Mohan Singh vs State of UPAIR  held inapplicable
iii It is not necessary that the report of the Public Analyst should contain the mode or particulars of analysis or the test applied
But it should contain the result of analysis namely data from which it can be inferred whether the article of food was of was not adulterated
In the present case
the report of analyst did contain the data on the basis of which the analyst came to his conclusion
742 C E