MANGULAL CHUNILAL Vs. MANILAL MAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Gujarat is directed against the judgment and order of the said High Court in Cri. Revn. Application No. 145 of 1984 whereby the High Court allowed the application and set aside the conviction and sentence of Manilal Maganlal, one of the respondents before us. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the licence inspector, Mangulal Chunilal, was competent to file the complaint under S. 376(1) (d) (i) , read with S. 392(1) (a) , of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) The relevant facts are not now in dispute and are as follows:On October 10, l963, Mangulal Chunilal, licence inspector, filed a complaint against Manilal Maganlal, hereinafter referred to as the accused, alleging that the accused had carried on the work of blacksmith by manufacturing machinery, spare parts and the safe cupboards, without obtaining licence. At the end of the complaint it was stated:

(3.) It was contended before the High Court that the complaint had been filed by the Licence Inspector whereas the delegation under S. 69 of the Act was to the Deputy Health Officer to take proceedings as provided in S. 481 of the Act. It was contended that the expression "take proceedings" in S. 481 means instituting a complaint and does not mean causing a complaint to be filed Raju, J., who heard the revision, accepted this contention. He declined to follow the judgment of the Bombay High Court in The State vs. Manilal Jethalal, 55 Bom LR 377 in which it had been held that the words "take proceedings" meant "order proceedings to be taken".