LexBALLAVDAS AGARWALA versus SHRIJ.C.CHAKRAVARTY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• - - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 739 having been executed, the present suit filed. on October 18, 1939, is barred in so far as those properties are concerned, and the Devasthanam cannot get possession of them. R. Muthammal (Died) Para1neswari Both the Courts below have concurred in holding Thayammal that M. Picha Pillai must have got possession other- 5 b v.. . • • u raman1aswam1 wise than by execution of the decree, because even Devasthanam D.W. 2 not very friendly to the Devasthanam admitted that M. Picha Pillai was at the time of his death in Hidayatullah J. possession of all the suit properties. The two Courts below also adverted to the fact that for the years, Faslis 1338and1339 the 10th defendant paid the taxes, and this would not happen if the heirs of M. Picha Pillai were not in enjoyment. The fact that the patta stood in the names of the original j~dgment-debtors would not indicate anything, because mutations some- times lag behind change of possession. In view of the fact that the two Courts below have agreed on the finding and there is evidence to support it, we see no reason to interfere. The question of mesne profits was not pressed, and no other point having been argued, we hold that the appeal has no merits. It will, accordingly, be dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. BALLAVDAS AGARW ALA v. SHRIJ.C.CHAKRAVARTY (S. K. DAS,' A. K. SARKAR and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) Criminal Trial-Prosecution for offence under Municipal Act-- Authority to initiate prosecution Delegation of-If private citizen can file complaint-Calcutta Municipal Act, r923 (Ben. III of r923) SS. I2 and 537. The appellant was convicted of selling adulterated butter under ss. 406 and 407 read with s. 488 of the Calcutta Municipal Act as extended to the Municipality of Howrah on a complaint filed by the Sanitary Inspector on January z, 1954 which was signed in token of sanction by the Health Officer of the said municipality. The appellant contended that the trial was vitiated for want of a valid sanction because at the relevant time the Health Officer of the municipality did not have any power ta sanction the prosecution. Under the Act the power to institute .T anitary I5· 740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] z960 a complaint vested in the Commissioners bnt they could delegate the power to· the Chairman and the Chairman could also by a BallavdasAgarwala general or special order in writing re-delegate the power to the v. Vice-Chairman or to any municipal officer. The question of the Shri delegation of their power by the Commissioners was not specifi- J. C. Chakravarty cally raised, but it was urged that the Chairman had by certain subsequent orders revoked the delegation in favour of the Health Officer. The first order passed by the Chairman on February 6, 1948, delegated to the Vice-Chairman all his powers, duties and functions in respect of seven departments including the Health Department. The second order was passe.d on December 20, 1949, by which the Chairman delegated his powers and functions to the Health Officer to order prosecution and to sign prosecution sheets in respect of cases concerning the Health and Conservancy Departments. The third order was made on April 7, 1951, on the eve of the new election, and stated : "Till the election of ExecutiYes by the New Board I delegate all my powers and functions except those that are delegated to the Vice-Chairman to the respective officers of departments". After the election, the new Chairman passed an order on July 4, 1951, delegating all his powers, duties and functions in respect of six departments includ- ing the Health Department to the Vice-Chairman. The last order was passed on December 12, r952, which said: "I hereby revoke my order dated the 4th July 1951, so far as it relates to the Health Department which shall henceforth be direct under my charge until further orders. This will take effect from 15th December, 1952". The appellant urged that the third order modified the second and placed a time limit on it and that the delegation lapsed ,on the expiry of the time. The respondent contended that the third order did not affect the second and that in any case the Health Officer could file the complaint as a private citizen. Held, (per S. K. Das and A. K. Sarkar, JJ.) that the Health Officer was not empowered as the duly delegated authority to institute criminal proceedings against the ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.