1969 (5) TMI 59 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Competency to file an appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Interpretation of the term "complainant" under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Authority to institute legal proceedings under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
4. Authorization to file a complaint under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case was the competency to file an appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court dismissed the appeal by the Delhi Municipal Corporation against the order of acquittal, stating that only the complainant, Shri Sham Sundar Mathur, was competent to file the appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether the Delhi Municipal Corporation had the authority to prosecute the appeal.

2. The interpretation of the term "complainant" under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was crucial. The respondent argued that Shri Sham Sundar Mathur, the Municipal Prosecutor, was the complainant and thus the Delhi Municipal Corporation was not competent to apply for special leave under Section 417(3). However, the Supreme Court held that Shri Mathur acted as an agent authorized by the Delhi Municipal Corporation to file the complaint, making the Corporation the complainant in the eyes of the law.

3. The authority to institute legal proceedings under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, was also examined. The Court referred to Section 476(1)(h) of the Act, which grants the Commissioner the power to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the Corporation. It was established that the Commissioner alone could exercise the power to institute legal proceedings, including filing a complaint before a Magistrate.

4. Authorization to file a complaint under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was a critical aspect of the case. The Supreme Court analyzed the resolution passed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation authorizing the Municipal Prosecutor and Assistant Municipal Prosecutor to launch prosecutions under the Act. Since Shri Sham Sundar Mathur, the Municipal Prosecutor, filed the complaint under the authority given by the Corporation, the Court concluded that the complaint was properly filed.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Delhi Municipal Corporation, setting aside the High Court's judgment and remanding the appeal for a fresh hearing. The Court clarified that Shri Mathur acted as a representative of the Corporation, making the Corporation the complainant within the meaning of the relevant legal provisions.