LexMANGULAI CHUNILAL versus MANILAL MAGANLAL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
MANGULAI, CHUNILAL
v.
MAMLAL MAGANLAL & ANR.
November 23. 1967
(S M. S!KRI. K. S. HEGDE AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.J
Bo111ha_l Pn11·i11cial Af1111icipal Corporation Act, 1949 ss. 69 and 481--
Filing of Co111plaint. lrho can-"Take proceedj.11gs," n1ec.,ning of.
The appellant-licence inspector, filed a complaint against the res-
Pondent.
The appellant had obtained permission to file the complaint
from the Deputy Health Officer, "{ho had been
delegated
the powers
under s. 69(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation .. Act,
1949, by the Municipal Commissioner.
The respondent was convicted.
but, the High Court in revision, set aside the conviction.
Jn appeal tO
this Court. the appellant contended that there was no limiting words in
the order delegating the power to the
Deputy Health Officer that he
should file a complaint himself and not authorise others; and that power
to take proceedings includes power to authorise others to institute pro~
ceedings in the context of the Act.
Dismissing the appeal.
HELD ;
Only the authorities mentioned in s. 48·1 read with s. 69
could launch proceedings. a_gainst persons chaTgcd with offt10ces under the
Act or the rule..". regulations or bye-laws made under it.
A person who
files a complaint under the Act must show that he has the authority to
file that con1plaint and that authority cannot be conferred upon bv an
erroneous interpretat~on long acquiesced. f406 D-Fl
The word<;. ··rake proceedings'' cannot be interpret~. to mean "order
proceedings to he taken" because the word "take'" is an E.ngfish \\-'Ord and
onlv a n1canin_g \\'hich it bears in the English language can be ascribed
to ·it.
[406 11-·CJ
Rallovda< Aearwalr. v. J. C. Chakravartv, [196@1 2 S.C.R. 739. T. P.
Thakur v. Rati/al Motilal Patel, [1968] I S.C.R. 455, followed.
S1a1e Y. Manila/ Jethalal. ( l 953) 55 B.L.R. 377, disapproved.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
59 of 1965
Appeal from the judgment and order dated Novemqer 9, 1964
G
of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Revision .Application No.
145 of l 964.
H
8. R. Agarwala. for the appellant.
R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, J.
This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court
of Gujarat is directed against the judgment and order of the said
High Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 145 of 1964
-I 0 2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1%8] 2 S C.R.
whereby the High Court allowed the application and set aside the
conviction and sentence of Manila! Maganlal. one of the.respon-
dents before us.
The only point involved in this appeal is whe-
ther the licence inspector, Mangulal Chunilal, was competent to
file the complaint under s. 376 (I) ( d) ( i). read with s. 392( 1 ) (a),
of the
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949,
hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The relevant facts are not now in dispute and are as follows :
On October J 0, 1963, Mangulal Chunilal, licence inspector, filed
a complaint against Manila! Maganlal, hereinafter referred to as
the accused. alleging that the accused .had carried on the work
A
B
of blacksmith by manufacturing machinery, spare parts and safe
cupboards, without obtaining licence. At the end of the comp:aint'
C
it was stated :
"l have obtained permission for filing this complaint
from the Medical Officer of Health by order no.
dated 1-10-63."
The licence inspector had applied to the Deputy Health Ofticer,
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. to accord permission to file
the complaint as offence under s. 392 (1) (a) of the Act had been
committed.
The Deputy Health Officer noted :
""Permission is granted under Section
481( 1 )(a)
of Chapter 30 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal
Corporation Act of
1949 to file complaint for
the
offence committed in breach of the provisions of law as
shown in the above report."
The Deputy Health Officer (including Deputy Health Officer.
Food and Licence Branch) had been delegated ·certain powers
under s. 69(1) of the Act by the Municipal Commissioner. The
powers delegated to the Deputy Health Officer include :
"Power to take proceedings against
any person who charged with
.•
Any offence
Sec. 481 (I)
(~)(i)(iii)
(i) Under section 392(i) and/or 392(2) of the
B.P.M.C. Act 1949 for breach of provisions
mentioned in section below :-
164, 184(1)(a). 233(1), 297, 376, 377(1),
381, 383, 384''.
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.