PUKHRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the above mentioned both the miscellaneous petitions a common question of law is involved so both the miscellaneous petitions are being disposed of by a common order. Moreover the cases have been registered against the petitioners who are common in the petitions alleging in the complaint that the shop of the petitioners was inspected twice in a day and contravention of the Act was alleged on this ground also both these petitions are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THESE miscellaneous applications are filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1154/84 and 1153/87 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali.

(3.) I have considered the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through Section 37 of the Act. It can not be disputed that any complaint for the contravention of the provisions of the Act can be filed by the Controller or by any Officer authorised by the Controller as is provided under Section 37 of the Act. In the present cases the complaints have not been filed by the Controller or any officer authorised by the Controller. In the instant cases the complaint was filed by the Inspector under the authorisation made by the Assistant Controller. It is thus clear that the Inspector was authorised to file the complaint who if was delegated the powers by the Controller, then in that situation he (Asstt. Controller) was only competent to file the complaint and he had no power to again authorise the Inspector to file complaint. It is settled law that an authorised person cannot authorise someone else to do certain act for which he himself is 'authorised by someone else. Learned C. J. M. could have seen this important aspect of the case before taking cognizance.