Judgment 1. THIS is an appeal against an order of conviction and sentence under section 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. THE prosecution case is as follows : the appellant Sital Prosad shaw has a grocery at 26a, Raja Brojendra street, Calcutta. On January 21, 1963 one Food Inspector under the corporation of Calcutta visited the shop and took samples of ghee from at in of ghee stored in the shop on s wooden rack. He divided the sample into three parts and put them in three dry and clean phials. He made over one part to the appellant and sent one part, under proper procedure, to the public Analyst and the Public Analyst on analysis has found the sample to be adulterated. On this allegation the appellant was charged under section 16 (1)of the said Act. He pleaded not guilty various defences were taken but the learned Magistrate convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months more. The ghee found in the tin, which was seized, was directed to be forfeited. 3. THE appellant has come before us in this appeal against this order of conviction and sentence. Mr. Ghosh who appears for the appellant before us has taken us through all the relevant materials on record. His main argument on facts is that the ghee from the tin was poured in a dirty mug of a tea stall, where the tin of the ghee was heated and the sample was taken from that dirty mug and so no conviction should be based on the analyst's report of such sample. We find from the evidence of the Food Inspector, dr. Mukherjee that he found the ghee in the tin in a solidified form. There was a little opening on the top of the tin and unless the ghee was heated, no sample could be taken. There is no dispute that the tin was ultimately taken out of the shop to the tea stall of Amulya Kumar Maulik, P. W. 2, close to the appellant's shop. The food Inspector was accompanied, by a peon Nathuni Chobey, who has been examined as defence witness No. 1. There is no dispute that the tin was ultimately taken out of the shop to the tea stall of Amulya Kumar Maulik, P. W. 2, close to the appellant's shop. The food Inspector was accompanied, by a peon Nathuni Chobey, who has been examined as defence witness No. 1. From the evidence of this witness it appears that the tin of ghee was taken out of the appellant's shop and heated in the tea stall of P. W. 2. Dr. Mukherjee has said that from the tin after it was heated he took the sample in a clean mug. He did not leave the appellant's shop. Obviously, therefore, the sample was taken in a mug in the appellant's shop. P. W. 2 has said that the tin was heated in his shop but he does not say that the sample was taken in his shop. D. W. 1 also said that after the tin was heated he brought back the tin to the food Inspector and then under his instructions he poured the sample in a mug. Two other defence witnesses were examined. D. W. 2 is Madan dhar. He no doubt said that he saw the tin of ghee being heated in the tea shop and then the peon D. W. 1 poured the ghee into a mug that was in the tea shop. D. W. 3 is Abinash chandra Ghosh. He has said that when he came to the place he saw a peon entering the shop with a tin and the peon poured the ghee from a mug. Though the evidence is not clear, it seems that this witness meant that the sample was taken from ghee poured from a mug. So the effect of the evidence of these two defence witnesses is that after the tin was heated, ghee was poured in a mug of the tea shop. But, as we have seen, though the Food Inspector has said that the ghee was poured in a mug, none has said, neither he nor p. W. 2 nor even D. W. 1 has said that ghee was poured in a mug of the tea stall or in a mug in the tea stall. But, as we have seen, though the Food Inspector has said that the ghee was poured in a mug, none has said, neither he nor p. W. 2 nor even D. W. 1 has said that ghee was poured in a mug of the tea stall or in a mug in the tea stall. On a consideration of all the evidence on record on this point, we have no hesitation in finding that ghee was not poured in a mug of the tea stall before sample was taken there from. But we accept the evidence of the Food inspector to the effect that after the tin was heated and brought back to' the appellant's shop, he poured the ghee from that tin in a clean mug and from that he took the samples. There is no reason not to act on the report of the Public Analyst which shows that the ghee was adulterated. Furthermore, from the nature of the adulteration and the variation from the standard for ghee as laid down in the schedule, we must also find that such variation from the standard cannot occur merely for the fact that the ghee was poured in a dirty mug. Thus, in any view of the matter, we do not find any difficulty in acting on the public Analyst's report and in finding that the ghee which was stored in the appellant's shop at the relevant time from which sample was taken was adulterated. 4. MR. Ghosh then raises a question of law. He submits that the complaint was filed by the Food inspector, Dr. A. K. Mukherjee. But he was not competent to file the complaint and so the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is bad in law. He refers to the Single Bench decision of this Court in (1) Corporation of Calcutta v. M\s. Bhagat Oil Mill reported in 74 CWN 164. It appears however that the facts of that case are wholly different. The complaint which was the subject matter of that case was a complaint under section 537 read with section 437 (1) of the Calcutta municipal Act. But the present complaint is under section 20 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It appears however that the facts of that case are wholly different. The complaint which was the subject matter of that case was a complaint under section 537 read with section 437 (1) of the Calcutta municipal Act. But the present complaint is under section 20 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. What S. N. Bagchi, J. has held in that decision is that when a prosecution is to be launched for an offence under the Calcutta Municipal Act or any rule or Bye-law made there under the complaint is to be filed by the commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation. This is because of section 30 and section 585 of the Calcutta Municipal act. The present complaint is not for an offence under the Calcutta municipal Act or any Rule or Bye-law made there under. The present complaint is for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and is covered under section 20 of that Act. The learned Judge in the said Single bench decision has not stated the facts involved in that case and that has possibly given a scope for thinking that even in respect of an offence under the Food Adulteration Act the complaint is to be filed by the commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation. We have brought before us the record of that case (Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1969) and examined the facts involved in that case and as we have said that was a complaint under section 537 read with section 437 (1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act which was an offence under the Calcutta municipal Act and so what, the learned judge said in the case was correct inasmuch as it is the law that for prosecution for an offence under the Calcutta Municipal Act, the complaint is to be filed by the Commissioner of Calcutta Corporation but the facts as we have said, are different in this case and this is a complaint for an offence under the Food Adulteration Act: the facts in this case are on all fours with the facts of the case in (2) The state of Bombay v. Parshottam Kanaiyalal reported in Madras Law Journal reports 1961 page 59. That was a case for an offence under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. That was a case for an offence under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. A food Inspector under the Baroda municipal Board, filed a complaint with the consent of the Chief Officer of the said Municipality. The Chief Officer was authorised by the Municipality to give consent in such case. The supreme Court held in that case that the food Inspector can lodge a complaint under the Prevention of Food Adultration act if consent in writing is given by a local authority or by a person authorised in this behalf by the local authority. Here in this case it is not disputed that the Health Officer, Calcutta Corporation is a person authorised in this behalf by the Calcutta corporation and the present complaint has been filed with the written consent of the Health Officer. The Supreme Court has said that such a complaint by the Food Inspector is competent in law and cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is not bad in law. A more or less similar question was raised before us in Criminal Appeal no. 830 of 1963 (3) Dwarka Prosad agarwalla v. The Corporation of Calcutta and we pointed out that when there is written consent of a person authorised by the local authority a food Inspector can file a complaint for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Mr. Ghosh then turns round and argues that this was not really a complaint by Dr. Mukherjee, the food Inspector, but a complaint by the Corporation of Calcutta and so this ought to have been signed by the commissioner. But only the facsimili of the Commissioner has been put below the complaint. While making out this point. Mr. Ghosh refers to the decision of this Court in (4) Corporation of Calcutta v. Bivabati Bose 73 CWN 786. We had occasion to notice this decision in the said Criminal appeal No. 830 of 1963 (3) Dwarka prosad Agarwalla v. The Corporation of Calcutta. Here also the complaint is not really a complaint made by the corporation of Calcutta but a complaint by the Food Inspector. True at the top the complainant is described as the Corporation of Calcutta but in the body of the complaint it is said that the Food Inspector, Dr. Mukherjee makes the complaint. Here also the complaint is not really a complaint made by the corporation of Calcutta but a complaint by the Food Inspector. True at the top the complainant is described as the Corporation of Calcutta but in the body of the complaint it is said that the Food Inspector, Dr. Mukherjee makes the complaint. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in (5)Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagadish Lal and another reported in air 1970 SC 7 has said that though the complaint is made by the Food inspector the complainant in law is the Municipality and the Municipality can prefer an appeal under section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly, here in this complaint, the corporation of Calcutta has been described at the top as the complainant which in law it is, but then the complaint is actually filed by the Food inspector, Dr. Mukherjee with the corusent of the Health Officer and since it is not a complaint by the Corporation, the decision in (4) Corporation of calcutta v. Bivabati Basu is not attracted and the facsimili put below the complaint is just redundant. Thus in any view of the matter we think that the petition of complaint on which cognizance was taken is not bad in law and the conviction cannot be set aside on that ground. 5. MR. Ghosh finally raises the question of sentence. We find that the appellant has suffered a part of the sentence of imprisonment. We do not propose to send him back to prison in this matter after so many years and the sentence of fine also needs some reduction. 6. IN the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to this that the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone ant a fine of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred)in default to rigorous imprisonment for two months. The order for forfeiture stands.