Judgement JUDGMENT :-This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent herein for an offence under the Food Adulteration Act, Central Act 37 of 1954. The prosecution was launched by the Health Officer, Erode Municipality, for the respondent being in possession of adulterated milk for the purpose of sale. The purchase of the milk for the purpose of test was on 22nd December 1955. The Act under which the respondent was prosecuted came into force on 1st June 1955. Under S. 20 of the Act there shall be no prosecution for an offence under this Act except by or with the written consent of the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority. The local authority is defined under S. 2, cl. (viii) as meaning a municipality, the municipal board or municipal corporation, the local area, as found in sub-cl. (1) (a) of cl. (viii) of S. 2. The Health Officer in this case was no doubt authorised by G. O. No. 542, P. H., dated 14th February 1956. The prosecution in this case was before the authorisation by the Government. Previous to this there was another Government Order, G. O. No. 1635, P. H., of 1941, under which the Health Officer in the case of a municipality was empowered to exercise all the powers under Ss. 9, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 28 of the Madras Public Health Act (Act III of 1939). Under S. 16 of the Madras Public Health Act the Health Officer can exercise the functions only under any of the Acts mentioned therein, and Central Act 37 of 1954 is not one of the Acts mentioned therein, and, therefore, the authorisation under S. 16 of the Madras Public Health Act would not avail for the purpose of prosecution. This being not a prosecution launched by the municipality or with the written consent of the municipality, it is invalid. The lower Court was, therefore, justified in acquitting the accused. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.