- (1.) I have heard the learned Advocates on both sides. While examining the records a very peculiar circumstance has appeared. The petition of complaint in the original record was not signed by the Commissioner of the corporation of Calcutta. So in view of section 585 read with section 30 of the Calcutta Municipal Act 1951 and section 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure this Court cannot consider the petition of complaint as presented before the learned Magistrate as one according to law. The signatories to the petition of complaint are the Sanitary Inspector and the Health Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta. The complainant in the present case was none but the Corporation of Calcutta. Section 585 (a) (i) and (ii) says that "the Corporation may take or withdraw from proceedings against any person who is charged with any offence against the Calcutta Municipal act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder or any offence which affects or is likely to affect any property or interest of the Corporation or the due administration of this Act. . . . " Section 30 of the Calcutta Municipal Act says that the Corporation or its Standing Committee may, by resolution passed at a meeting of the Corporation or of the Standing Committee, as the case may be, delegate to the commissioner any of its powers, duties or functions under this Act or any rule bye-law or regulation made thereunder. The Corporation alone has the power to institute or withdraw from any legal proceeding. The Corporation or the Standing committee may delegate this power only to the Commissioner-missioner of the Corporation of Calcutta. There can be no delegation of a delegated power. Therefore, the power of the Corporation of Calcutta to institute any criminal proceeding in any court for certain purposes as enjoined by sections 537 and 585 of the calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, can only be initiated either by the Corporation itself or by its delegate, the Commissioner who cannot delegate the delegated power either to the Health officer or to the Sanitary Inspector. Therefore, the signing of the petition of complaint in the present case by the sanitary Inspector and the Health officer is not a petition of complaint made and signed by the Corporation of Calcutta through its statutory delegate within the meaning of Section 30 read with Section 585 of the Calcutta municipal Act. The learned Magistrate on receiving the petition of complaint did not examine the signatories to the petition of complaint. If the signatory to the petition of complaint was the Health Officer, he was not a delegate of the complainant Corporation, according to Sec. 585 read with section 30 of the Calcutta Municipal act and under Section 200 clause (aa)of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he is not a public officer who was discharging his public duties of making and signing the petition of complaint as such before the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was to have examined the Health Officer under Section 200 and exception in clause (aa) of section (200) of the code of Criminal Procedure had no scope for its operation. That is a different question. But the petition of complaint, as presented before the learned Magistrate by the Corporation of Calcutta, the complainant, was to have been signed by the Commissioner of the Corporation of Calcutta to make it a petition of complaint, filed by a public officer in discharge of his pubilic duties within the scope of section 200 (aa) read with section 4 (h) of the code of Criminal Procedure. The allegation of facts in the petition of complaint, constituting the alleged offence against Food Adulteration Act was not supported by the signature of the delegate of the complainant i. e. the commissioner of the Corporation of calcutta. Therefore, in the proceeding before the learned Magistrate, there was no valid petition of complaint, filed by a Public Officer i. e. the commissioner or delegate for the corporation of Calcutta in discharge of his public duties. The Sanitary inspector and the Health Officer are not entitled, in view of Section 3 read with section 585 of the Calcutta municipal Act, to take a criminal proceeding under the Food Adulteration. Act on the petition of complaint against the respondent in this appeal. There may be merit in the appeal but the appeal fails because the learned magistrate lacked initial jurisdiction in entertaining the petition of complaint on the very face of the petition of complaint as discussed above. So, the appeal fails on a technical point and is dismissed.;