CHITTARANJAN DAS vs THE STATE OF ORISSA

The Supreme Court interpreted Section 20(1) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, holding that the written consent for prosecution does not need to specify an individual offence, as the language of the section allows for general authority. The Court emphasized that requiring specific offences would defeat the purpose of the provision, which is to streamline the prosecution process. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act based on the Superintendent of Police's consent.