SANITARY INSPECTORQUILON MUNICIPALITY Vs. VARARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a complaint preferred by the Sanitary Ins-pector, Quilon Municipality, against the respondent, for an offence punishable under Section 147, Subsection 1(C) read with Section 42 of the Travancore Public Health Act 1121, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the respondent's failure to comply with the directions lawfully given to him for abating a nuisance, the Additional Second Class Magistrate, Quilon, after deciding the relevant questions of fact in favour of the complainant, pronounced judgment dismissing the complaint, and acquitting the respondent, on the ground that the complaint was not supported by an express authorisation as prescribed by Section 152 of the Act. The State, represented by the complainant, has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent.

(2.) The only point for decision in the appeal is, whether the complainant had the requisite authority under Section 152 of the Act. Notice was issued to the respondent under Section 42 of the Act to abate a nuisance, and was served on him, but he failed to comply with it. The complainant reported the respondent's non-compliance with the directions in the notice, to the Health Officer by his report Ext. P-6 dated the 3rd June 1955. As directed by the Health Officer, a notice to show cause why the res-pondent should not be prosecuted was issued to him and was duly served. The Health Officer then passed an order "prosecute" which is Ext. P-3, and is dated the 11th June, 1355. The complaint was preferred pursuant to this. The two orders aforesaid, dated the 4th June and 11th June 1955 were passed on Ext. P-6. It may he mentioned, that there had been a general authorisation Ext. P-4, to the same complainant by the Health Officer, on the 28th June 1951, authorising him under Section 152 of the Act, to prefer complaints in respect of offences under the Act. At the trial P. W. 4, the Health Officer, testified, that Ext. P-3 was an authorisation to the complainant to lodge this prosecution. The learned Magistrate holding that Ext. P-4 was only a general authorisation to the complainant to prefer complaints in respect of offences under the Act, seemed to think that Ext. P-3 was only an order to prosecute and not an express authorisation to the complainant. We are of the opinion, that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is unsound, and cannot be supported.

(3.) There can be no doubt, that an express authorisation to the complainant to prefer a complaint, is an essential requirement under Section 152 of the Act. In this view, Ext. P-4 being only a general authorisation, is inadequate by itself. The learned Magistrate, in our opinion, misconstrued and misunderstood the scope and effect of Ext. P-3 order to prosecute when it was passed upon Ext. P6 report of the complainant. If was an authorisation to him, to prosecute the respondent, for non-com-pliance with the directions in the notice issued to him, upon a report thereof, being made by the complainant, who had already clothed himself with a general authority to prefer complaints. Ext. P-3 coming on the top of Ext. P-4, and having been passed upon the reports Ext. P-6, is not lacking in any of the requirements prescribed by Section 152 of the Act. There was, therefore a valid authorisation to the complainant to lodge the complaint.