HEALTH INSPECTOR TELLICHERRY MUNICIPALITY Vs. K JAYARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Health Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality, complainant in S.T. 458 of 1986 on the file of the judicial first class Magistrate, Tellicherry is the appellant. Complaint is for erecting and running a sugar cane crushing machine without licence inspite of notice and warning. Acquittal was solely on the basis of the decision in Abraham Sunny v. Sreemathy Ammal, on the ground that the appellant was not entitled to prosecute because the Municipal Commissioner was not competent to delegate his function and authorised somebody else to prosecute the offender.

(2.) The decision in Abraham Sunny's case (supra), was rendered interpreting the provisions 1. 1974 KLT 755. of sections 15,419 and 425 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 which are not identical to the corresponding provisions contained in sections 27(3), 389 and 393 of the Kerala Municipalities Act of which alone were/are concerned in this case.

(3.) It is true that the words used in section 425 of the Municipal Corporations Act and section 393 of the Municipalities Act are identical and they read The Commissioner may take, or withdraw from, proceeding against any persons. Disagreeing with a contra view taken by the Bombay High Court in State v. Manilal Jethlal2, the Supreme Court held in Mangalal Chunilal v. Maganlal3, interpreting an identical provision in section 481 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act that: But we are not free to interpret the words take proceedings to mean order proceedings to be taken because the word take is an English word and we can only ascribe to it a meaning which it bears in the English languageTT.