JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THE question which is required to be answered in this reference has been
formulated by a learned Single Judge as follows.--"whether a local authority can be regarded as a complainant entitled to
prefer appeal under Section 417 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code
against an order of acquittal in cases instituted on complaints filed by
persons authorised by it in this behalf or with its written consent. "
(2.)IN order to appreciate the question, it is necessary to state the facts of the
present case, which are not in dispute. One Abhinandan Prashad Goyal, a Food
inspector, filed a complaint against respondent Prabhu Narain in the court of the
municipal-Magistrate of Jaipur, on October 30, 1963 for the alleged commission of
an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Preyention of Food
adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the allegation being
that Prabhu Narain had sold adulterated 'ghee' to the Inspector on April 1, 1963. The learned Magistrate held that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its
allegation, and acquitted the accused by his judgment dated June 18, 1964. The
municipal Council then preferred the present appeal under Section 417 (3) of the
code of Criminal Procedure after obtaining the special leave of this Court. At the
hearing of the appeal, a preliminary objection was taken before a learned Single
judge, that the Municipal Council was not competent to tile the appeal as it was
not the complainant in the case. As this was an important point of law which was
common to several other pending appeals, it was thought proper that it may be
decided by a division bench. This is how the reference has arisen.
(3.)WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been argued by Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the Municipal Council, that as Food Inspector
abhinandan Prasad Goyal was authorised by the Municipal Council to file the
complaint under Section 20 (1) of the Act, it was the Council which was the real
complainant in the case. He has also argued that Abhinandan Prasad Goyal was
only the agent or delegate of the Council even though in the body of the complaint
he (Abhinandan Prasad Goyal) had mentioned his personal name as the
complainant. The learned counsel has cited M. J. Powell v. Municipal Board of
mussoorie (1900) ILR 22 All 123 (FB), Mahdo Chowdhury v. Turab Mian, AIR 1915
cal 263, Emperor v. Bahawal Singh, AIR 1918 All in (1), Kannan Devan Hills
produce Co. , Ltd. v. T. N. Madhavan Pillai, AIR 1956 TC 189 and Ramsagar Singh
v. Chan-drika Singh, AIR 1961 Pat 364 to support his contention. On the other hand, it has been argued by Mr. Tikku, on behalf of the respondent,
that since the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector in his personal name, by
virtue of the authority which had been given to him under Section 20 (1) of the
act, Abhinandan Prasad Goyal had his own entity which was quite separate and
distinct from that of the Municipal Council and that the Municipal Council could not
be held to be the complainant in the case for any purpose whatsoever. The learned
counsel has placed reliance on Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur v. Sri Ram, AIR 1964 All
270, State through Medical Officer of Health, Moradabad v. Ishwar Saran. AIR
1964 All 497, Ra. ia Ram v. Ram Achal AIR 1962 All 6, Catholic Union Bank Ltd. , v. Inasu Antony, ILR (1960) Ker 1123, Public Prosecutor v. Kappam Satyanaravana,
air 1960 Andh Pra 27. In re Syed Ibrahim, AIR 1959 Mad 32, Prasannachary v. Chik-kapinachar, AIR 1959 Mys 106, S. Parama-nanda Nadar v. Karunakara Dass
air 1914 Mad 387 (1), S. P. Dubey v. Narsingh Bahadur AIR 1961 All 447,
radhika Mohan Das v. Hamid All, AIR 1927 Cal 405, Muhammad Hashim v. Emperor AIR 1940 Sind 134 (FB) Isa v. Musammat Ranon (1912) 13 Cri LJ 136,
queen-Empress v. Chenchayya (1900) ILR 23 Mad 626. Partha-sarathi Naickar v. T. Krishnaswami Avvar, AIR 1928 Mad 169 (1), Mian Tei Singh v. Kalloo, AIR 1946
oudh 15, and State through Nagar Mahapalika Varanasi v. Prem Prakash Jauhar
air 1966 All 504.