MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE SAONER Vs. RATHI N D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, by special leave under S. 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant, municipal committee, Saoner, is challenging the correctness of the acquittal of respondent 1 of an offence under S. 53 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.

(2.) The appellant-committee, through its inspector appointed under S. 48 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, had prosecuted respondent 1 under S. 53 of that Act, for contravening S. 12 by effecting certain sales beyond the closing hours of the shop on March 10, 1965. The respondent had challenge the tenability of the prosecution on the ground that previous sanction as required by S. 60 was not given by the proper authority before instituting the prosecution. The learned trial magistrate upheld this preliminary objection and held that the prosecution, without the requisite prior sanction, was not tenable. In that view, he acquitted the respondent. That is how the matter was brought before this Court.

(3.) Sri Gaikwad, advocate for the appellant-committee, was submitting that the Magistrate was in error in taking the view that no prior sanction was given. He relied on the resolution dated February 24, 1965, passed by the complaint-committee (p. 16 of the paper-book) in support of his contention that a valid sanction was given for this prosecution by that resolution. Sri G. S. Padhye, advocate for respondent 1, submitted, on the other hand, that this resolution was in one sense redundant and in another sense it was beyond the powers of the appellant-committee if thereby the appellant purported to delegate its powers of sanction to the inspector. He supported the reasoning of the learned trial magistrate.