Case: Ranajoy Bose Vs. A.B. Roy

A criminal case was instituted against the appellant and some others alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (P.F.A. Act for short), on the allegation that he was selling adulterated tea leaves. The case of the prosecution was that the Food Inspector inspected the shop/godown/factory of M/s. Brook Bond India Ltd. on 5.4.1978 and collected some samples of tea Grade PD-1. The said samples on analysis by the Public Analyst were found not conforming to the prescribed standard in respect of crude fibre content in the Tea and was found to be adulterated. The complaint was filed against the appellant after obtaining consent from the District Health officer IV (South West), Municipal Corporation of Calcutta. The Learned Magistrate on perusal of the complaint and the materials produced by the complainant, took cognizance of the offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the P.F.A. Act and issued process against the accused persons in May, 1978.4. On consideration of the application filed by the appellant and other accused persons for discharge from prosecution, the learned Magistrate by the order passed on 25.8.1981 discharged the accused the accused company M/s. Brook Bona India Limited and Shri P.K. Banerjee, the Manager of the company from the prosecution but rejected the prayer of the appellant. The Revision Petition filed by the appellant challenging the said order was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 22.12.1986. The appellant filed special leave petition, SLP(Crl.) 832/87 before this Court challenging the order of the High Court. The said SLP was later withdrawn by the appellant.5. Thereafter the appellant filed an application under Sections 245(2) and 245(3) Cr.P.C. on 2.2.95 seeking discharge from prosecution on the grounds of delay in concluding the trial and want of a valid order giving consent for launching the prosecution against him. The learned Senior Municipal Magistrate rejected the application by the order dated 23.6.1995. The appellant challenged the order by filing the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the High Court which was registered as C.R.R. No. 1978 of 1995. The High Court by the order dated 14.11.2000 dismissed the said petition with a direction for expeditious disposal of the case by the trial court. Hence this appeal.

Reasoning:
we are of the view that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Corporation is to be accepted. While issuing the notifications if the intention of the authority was to vest the power to accord consent for launching prosecution under Section 20(1) of the P.F.A. Act, then it would have been so stated in column-II against item No. 3 of the notification, the areas comprised in or areas added to, the Calcutta Corporation instead of the areas comprised in every District of the Calcutta Corporation. If the entire Corporation was to be taken as one unit for the purpose of vesting power under Section 20(1) P.F.A. Act then reference to every District was redundant. For ascertaining the intention of the authority issuing the notification the entry should be read in its entirety. Construing a portion of the notification which will result in rendering the other portion redundant should be avoided.The High Court in the order under challenge did not disturb the view taken in the earlier decision in Rasiklal Saxena vs. The State of West Bengal (supra) and decided the case against the appellant and in favour of the Corporation applying the de facto doctrine. It was fairly stated by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation that the said doctrine has no application to this case. If the authority who granted consent for launching prosecution in the case had not vested with such power under the statute then question of applying the de facto doctrine to the order passed by such incorporated authority does not arise. However, since we have not accepted the contention/s raised on behalf of the appellant on merits of the case and have taken the view that the District Health Officer is competent to pass the order granting consent for prosecution, the order of dismissal of the Revision Petition filed by the appellant is to be maintained.