LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus JAGDISH LAL SON OF RADHAKISHAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B /c D E F G H MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELm v. JAGDISH LAL SON OF RADHAKISHAN & ANR. May 27, 1969 [J. C. SHAH, S. M. S!KRI AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1964 (37 of 1964), s. 20- Afunicipality authorizing 1'1unlcipal Prosecutor to file complaint on its behalf-Accused acquitted-Municipality 1vhether 'complainant' lvithin ineaning of s. 417(3) of Code of Civil Procedure-Whether competent to file application for special leave to appeal. A· complaint under s. 7 read with s. 16 of the Prevention of Food Aduiteration Act, 1964 \vas filed against the respondent. It was filed by the }..funicipal Prosecutor V.'ho had been authorised to file such compl~ints bv a resolution passed -by the appellant corporation under s. 20 of the aforesaid Act. On the respondent being acquitted the appellant corpora- t~on filed an application in the High Court for special leave to appeal under s. 417 of the Cade of Criminal Procedure. The application was allov.1ed. When the appeal came up for hearing a pfeliminary objection \vas raised by the respondent that the complaint having been filed by the }\funicipal Prosecutqr the corporation was not a 'complainant' within the meaning of s. 417(p) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there- fore special leave to appeal should not have been granted. The High Court upheld the prelil))inary objection and dismissed the appeal. By special leave the corpoiation appealed to this Court. HELD: (i) Under s. 476(1) (h) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act the person competent to institute legal proceedings is the Commis- sioner. However the present case was governed not by that provision but by s. 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1964 which pro- vides that a prosecutiori under that Act may be instituted "by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or a person authdrised in this beha]f, by general or special order by the Central Government or the1 St'ate Government or a local authority". Section 2(vii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act defines a "local autho- rity" to mean "in the case of a local area which is a municipality, the municipal board or municipal cdrporation". The Delhi Municipal Cor- poration was a local authority within the meaning of s. 20~ [581 H; 582 C, G-H: 584 A] (ii) The Municipal! Prdsecutor had filed the complaint against the respondent under autMritv given to him by the resolution of the Delhi :rvrunicioal Corporation under s. 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In filing the complaint the said prosecutor was not actin~ on his own personal behalf but was acting as an agent authorised by the Delhi Municipal Corporation to file the complaint. It must therefore be deemed in law that the Delhi Municipal Corporation was the 'complainant' in the case. for according to ~be Latin maxim. "One who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself." [583 H; 584 C-D] Being thus the co~plainant in the case the appeIIant Corporation could properly file the application under s. 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [Case remanded to High Court for disposal according to Jaw.] [584 E] 59 0 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970] 1 s.c.R. flallr11·dt1s Ai.:arwafa \", J. C. c:hak.rcH'c.rry, [1962] J S.C.R. 739 and A :\'a;.ir Ah:i1aci v: Kine; Fn1peror, 63 I.A. 372 as 381, referred to. CRt~HNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment. and order date~ April 29, 1965 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Dellu in Criminal Appeal l\o. 164-D of 1962. Bishan Narain, K. K. Raizada and A. G. Ratnaparkh1, for the appe:Jant. Sardar Bahadur and Yougindra Khushalani, for respondent No. I. R. 1\'. Sachthey, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramnswami, J. On August 29, 1960 Shri Sham Sundar Mathur, Municipal Prosecutor of th~ Delhi Municipal Corpora- tion filed a complaint in the court of Magistrate First Class against the respondent, Jagdishlal under s. 7 read with s. 16 of the Pre- vention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954). In the said complaint Shri Sham Sundar Mathur said that he was compe- tent to file the complaint under s. 20 of the aforesaid Act in accord- ance with a resolution passed by the Corporation in its meeting held on December 23, 1968. By his order dated April 30, 1962 the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent. Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.