Judgment Surinder Sarup, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Cr. Misc. Nos. 788 and 1595 of 1991 (R), as both these applications arise out of the same prosecution and the common order dated 25th November, 1989, whereby cognizance under Section 16 (A) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called the Act) read with Sections 272 and 273, IPC has been taken by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, in Adityapur P. S. case No. 147/88, corresponding to G. R. case No. 482/88, now pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, at Seraikella. 2. The short point involved in this case is whether prosecution can be launched under the Act by an Executive-cum-Resident Magistrate, as has been done hen. Section 20 (1) of the Act says, that no prosecution for an offence under the Act, shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of the Central or the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government. In the instant case under the law prosecution could only be launched by the concerned Food Inspector after obtaining written consent of the Chief Medical Officer or the Addl. Chief Medical Officer, as the case may be, in view of the S. O. 126, dated 30th January, 1979, published in Bihar Gazette Part II, dated 31st January, 1979, which is Annexure-4 in both these applications. Therefore, it is manifest that the prosecution that has been launched against the petitioners is illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. The impugned order dated 25th November, 1989, is otherwise bad inlaw inasmuch as the Act being Special Law overrides the General Law as incorporated in the Indian Penal Code. It may be mentioned here that no one has appeared on behalf of the State to oppose these applications. 4. Consequently, both these applications are allowed and the impugned prosecution as also the order taking cognizance dated 25th November, 1989 are hereby quashed.