But in filing the companyplaint Shri Mathur was number acting on his own personal behalf but was acting as an agent authorised by the Delhi Municipal Corporation to file the companyplaint.
This appeal is brought by special leave on behalf of the Delhi Municipal Corporation against the judgment of the High Court dated April 29, 1965 in Cr.
Shri Sham Sundar Mathur, M.A., LL.B., Municipal Prosecutor and Shri Bankey Behari Tawkley, Assistant Municipal Prosecutor were authorised by the erstwhile Delhi Municipal Committee tinder the above section.
163 D of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 29, 1965 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.
As the companyplainant in this case was Shri Sham Sundar Mathur the appeal companyld number be filed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation.
When the appeal came up for hearing a preliminary objection was raised on of the respondent that the only person companypetent to file the appeal was the companyplainant, Shri Sham Sundar Mathur.
But the leave application was number filed by him and, therefore, the Municipal Corporation was number companypetent to prosecute the appeal.
Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 states No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written companysent of, the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by a purchaser referred to in section 12, if he produces in companyrt a companyy of the report of the public analyst along with the companyplaint.
Bishan Narain, K. K. Raizada and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.
164 D of 1962.
8 of 1966.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
C.I/69 8 the authority given to him by the resolution of the Municipal Corporation.
Since the Municipal Corporation, Delhi, is a local authority within the meaning of S. 20 of Act 37 of 1954 and since it companyferred authority on the Municipal Prosecutor the companyplaint was properly filed by Sham Sundar Mathur.
By his order dated April 30, 1962 the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent.
In the present case Shri Sham Sundar Mathur, Municipal Prosecutor filed the companyplaint under s. 20 of Act 37 of 1954 under L14Sup.
The resolution was carried.
N. Sachthey, for respondent No.
Sardar Bahadur and Yougindra Khushalani, for respondent No.
The application was ranted on September 3, 1962.
The High Court upheld the preliminary objec tion of the respondent and dismissed the appeal by its order dated April 29, 1965.
In the said companyplain Shri Sham Sundar Mathur said that lie was companypetent to file the companyplaint under S. 20 of the aforesaid Act in accordance with a resolution passed by the Corporation in its meeting held on December 23, 1968.
The Delhi Municipal Corporation made an application to the High Court asking for special leave under s. 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appeal against the order of acquittal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. On August 29, 1960 Shri Sham Sundar Mathur, Municipal Prosecutor of the Delhi Municipal Corporation filed a companyplaint in the companyrt of Magistrate First Class against the respondent, Jagdishlal under S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 37 of 1954 .
It was companytended that only the companyplainant was companypetent to present an application for special leave under S. 417 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
