A.K.Chatterjee, J. - (1.) These two revisional applications heard together seek to quash two criminal proceedings pending before a competent Magistrate against the petitioner No.1 M/s. Tea King Pvt. Ltd. for displaying advertisement at two different places without obtaining written permission as required by Section 202 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 which constitutes an offence punishable under Section 610 of the said Act.
(2.) The first ground urged on behalf of the petitioner was that the complaints have been filed by the Licence Officer Z. Ali who, it has not been shown, is competent to me the complaint, Under section 585 of the Act, it is the Municipal Commissioner who can institute legal proceeding in the name of the Corporation and section 620 provides that no Court shall proceed to the trial of an offence except on the complaint of or upon information received from the Municipal Commissioner or any person authorized by him by general or special order in this behalf. In the instant case, it is found that the complaints have been filed in the name of Corporation of Calcutta and at the same time Z. Ali, the Licence Officer has been described as the complainant. At any rate, the proceeding in the name of the Corporation of Calcutta can be taken only by the Municipal Commissioner as laid down in Section 585 referred to above. There is no doubt that this is not merely an enabling provision of law but provides a mandatory rule of procedure. It is true that the Municipal Commissioner can authorise somebody else by general or special order to me complaint as provided in section 620 of Act. In the instant case, however, none of the complainants reveal that the Licence Officer was delegated with such power by the Municipal Commissioner. By way of reply, the learned Advocate for the Corporation has relied upon the provisions of Section 48 of the Act which, inter alia, enables the Municipal Commissioner to delegate any of his power of functions to any other officer or an employee of the Corporation and it was contended that whether there was such delegation or not was a matter to be decided upon evidence to be adduced at the time of trial. The question whether there was in fact, any delegation of power to the Licence Officer is undoubtedly a matter of evidence but in order to show that the complainants fulfilled the requirement of law it was absolutely essential to state therein that the Licence Officer was authorised by the Municipal Commissioner to file the complaint. There being no such averment in the complaints, it must be held that it cannot be regarded as a valid document in the eye of law upon which cognizance could be taken by the learned Magistrate.
(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner has also contended that the petition of complaint did not disclose the commission of any offence. I do not find any merit in this contention as the complaint read in its entirety indeed alleged that the petitioner No.1 M/s. Tea King Pvt. Ltd. had displayed an advertisement without obtaining the requisite permission. Another ground taken on behalf of the petitioner was that since the accused was a corporate body summons could be issued against it, only on a competent representative like the Secretary, the Local Manager or Principal Officer as laid down in section 63 Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been urged that in the instant case warrant of arrest has been issued by the Learned Magistrate against the company for which the police officer were threatening to arrest the Directors of the company including the petitioner No.2 Bimal Kumar Gupta. In this connection, reference has been made to a decision of this Court in AIR 1956 Cal. 2371. This do not appear to be a substantial contention and in the decision referred to above, the conviction of one Om Khosla on a complaint filed against a limited company was set aside as there was no evidence to show what was the, relationship between Om Khosla and the company. The fact that a warrant has been issued against the company is by no means a ground to quash the proceeding even if the issue of such a warrant without naming a person competent to represent the company may not be quite legal. However, it has been found that the complaints are incompetent not having been filed by a duly authorised officer, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.;