LAWS(CAL)-1984-2-20

CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA Vs. STATE

Decided On February 24, 1984
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revisional matter, the order dated 27. 7. 83 of the learned Senior municipal Magistrate and the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, in the Case No. 33d|81 has been challenged by the corporation of Calcutta. By the said order, the learned Senior Municipal Magistrate and the Metropolitan Magistrate gave direction on the complainant or his lawyer to file duly executed Vokalatnama.

(2.) THE Corporation of Calcutta through its food Inspector filed the complaint , in the aforesaid case under section 16 (1) (a) (i) and 12 of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, 1954 with the consent of-the Health Officer of the Corporation, against Shib Nath Pal of Messrs. Joy Gourango Stores situated at 17/-23, Orphanganj Market. Mr. K. K. Banerjee, advocate, who was appointed as the Municipal Prosecutor by the corporation was prosecuting the case without filing any Vokalatnama. The accused raised the objection and filed a position before the Court of the learned senior Municipal Magistrate and Metropolitan Magistrate praying for giving direction upon the complainant to file the duly executed Vokalatnama. The leaned Court gave'such direction by the [impugned order as mentioned above. This is how the matter has come up before us on revision for setting aside the said order.

(3.) MR. Balai Chandra Roy on behalf of the Corporation of Calcutta has made his submission in support of the revisional application and has drawn our attention to the provisions of section 579 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 to show that the Municipal Magistrate functioning within the Presidency Town of calcutta (now Metropolitan area of Calcutta)is the Presidency Magistrate (now metropolitan Magistrate) and he has his jurisdiction over the whole of Calcutta as defined in the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The fact that the Senior Municipal Magistrate is also the Metropolitan Magistrate in this case is evident from the cause title of the impugned order dated 27-7-83 wherein the Senior municipal Magistrate has also been described as the Metropolitan Magistrate.