ORDER J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This Reference has keen made by the Addl. District Magistrate, Mathura, against the judgment and order dated 20-12-1971 passed by the Special Magistrate First Class, Mathura. 2. The facts of the case can briefly be stated as under: Food-Inspector, Municipal Board, Kosi Kalan (Distt. Mathura) filed a complaint for the prosecution of Majid, hereafter to be called the Applicant, for his prosecution u/s 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. After the evidence on both sides had been recorded and the accused had been examined, an objection was raised on behalf of the Applicant that the Food-Inspector did not possess the authority to file the complaint and that the complaint was not maintainable. This objection was raised through an application dated 20-12-1971. The learned Magistrate turned down that objection by an order passed on the same date. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the learned Magistrate, the Applicant went up in revision before the Addl. D.M. who accepted the objection raised on behalf of the Applicant and has made this reference, recommending that the order passed by the Magistrate on 20-12-1971 be set aside and the proceedings pending in the court below be quashed. 3. Notice on this reference was issued to both the parties. I have heard learned Counsel on either side and have also perused the record. The sole question for consideration in this reference is whether the Food-Inspector was competent to file the complaint. 4. Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act reads as follows: Section 20(1)--No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of the Central Govt. or the State Govt. or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Govt. or the State Govt. or a local authority. Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted b a purchaser referred to in Section 12, if he produces in Court a copy of the report of the public analyst along with the complaint. (2) No Court inferior to that of Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act. 5. (2) No Court inferior to that of Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act. 5. A perusal of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 would reveal that prosecution for an offence under this Act can be instituted only by-- (1) the Central Govt., (2) the State Govt., (3) a local authority, (4) any person with the written consent of the Central Govt., the State Govt. or the local authority, (5) a person on whom authority has been conferred either by the Central Govt. or the State Govt. or by the Local Authority, by a general or special order, to file the complaint. 6. The language used in Section 20 leaves no room for doubt that if a complaint is filed by any person other than those specified therein the prosecution would be illegal ab initio. 7. The prosecution in the instant case was not launched either by the Central Govt. or by the State Govt. or by the Local Authority. It was launched by the Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Kosi Kalan. 8. The complaint is on a printed form and the name of the complainant therein is mentioned as "Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Kosi Kalan". At the bottom of the complaint also Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Kosi Kalan, Distt. Mathura has been described as the complainant. , 9. Now, the Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Kosi Kalan, could not file the complaint unless he had been authorised to do so either by the Central Govt. or by the State Govt. or by the Local Authority viz. the Municipal Board of Kosi Kalan. There is no question of the Central Govt. having issued a notification conferring the power on Food Inspectors to file Complaints and the learned Counsel, Municipal Board, Kosi Kalan conceded that there is no such notification issued by the Central Govt. After making a reference to the relevant notification issued by the State Govt. it was found that while the State Govt. authorised all Municipal Officers of Health in Uttar Pradesh to institute or give written consent for instituting prosecutions under the Act within the municipal areas within their jurisdiction, no such power was conferred on Food-Inspectors. 10. After making a reference to the relevant notification issued by the State Govt. it was found that while the State Govt. authorised all Municipal Officers of Health in Uttar Pradesh to institute or give written consent for instituting prosecutions under the Act within the municipal areas within their jurisdiction, no such power was conferred on Food-Inspectors. 10. Learned Counsel for the Municipal Board, Kosi Kalan, however, contended that the Local Authority, namely Municipal Board, Kosi Kalan, conferred power on the Executive Officer of the Board either to file a complaint himself or to give written consent for the same; and since the complaint in the instant case was filed by the Food Inspector with the written consent of the Executive Officer, it was a valid complaint. Reliance was placed for that purpose by learned Counsel on the copy of the resolution dated 20-7-1962 (Exh. Ka-7). The resolution passed is as follows: Shri Adhishashi Adhikari Mahodaya ko Dhara 20 ke adhin ohalan karne ke adhikar diye jate hain. Tatha Dhara 9 ke adhin Rajya Sarkar se prar-thna ki jawe ki woh Shri Adhishashi Adhikari Mahoday ko yahan ki Nagar palika ka Food Inspector niyukta kiya jawe. 11. Now, a perusal of the above resolution would indicate that the Local Authority thereby authorised the Executive officer to institute proceedings u/s 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The words used are "Chalan Karne Ke Adhikar diye jate hain." 12. It has nowhere been stated in the resolution, that the Executive Officer shall also have we authority to give written consent for institution of a case u/s 20 of the Act. 13. Since the Executive Officer had been authorised to himself file 'the complaint and since he had not been conferred with the power to give Iris written consent, the consent given by him in the instant case was illegal, with the necessary result that t complaint, filed by the Food Inspector tacks necessary authority and it is also illegal. 14. I am, therefore, in agreement with the learned Addl. D.M. that the order passed by tie Special Magistrate rejecting the contention raised on behalf of the Applicant was erroneous and that the proceedings under the complaint fifed against the Applicant by the Food Inspector being illegal should be quashed. 15. This reference is accordingly accepted. 14. I am, therefore, in agreement with the learned Addl. D.M. that the order passed by tie Special Magistrate rejecting the contention raised on behalf of the Applicant was erroneous and that the proceedings under the complaint fifed against the Applicant by the Food Inspector being illegal should be quashed. 15. This reference is accordingly accepted. The complaint dated 3-2-1971 filed by the food Inspector and all the proceedings thereunder stand quashed and the Applicant is discharged.