Case Note & Summary
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi initiated a prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, against the respondent for violating Sections 7 and 16. The complaint was filed on August 29, 1960, by the Municipal Prosecutor, who had been authorized by a resolution of the Corporation under Section 20 of the Act, which permits prosecutions by a local authority or its authorized agent. The trial court acquitted the respondent on April 30, 1962. The Corporation sought special leave to appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which was granted by the High Court on September 3, 1962. However, at the final hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Corporation was not the 'complainant' because the complaint had been lodged by the Municipal Prosecutor in his own name, and thus only he could seek leave to appeal. The High Court accepted this objection and dismissed the appeal on April 29, 1965. The Corporation then appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the Corporation qualified as the complainant under Section 417(3) CrPC. The respondent argued that the actual signatory of the complaint was the complainant, and the Corporation had no standing. The Corporation contended that it had acted through its authorized agent, and the complaint was effectively its own. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, defining 'local authority' to include the Municipal Corporation, and recognized that the Corporation had properly authorized the Prosecutor. It invoked the maxim 'qui facit per alium facit per se'—he who acts through another acts himself—to hold that the Corporation was the real complainant. The Court distinguished earlier precedents on municipal powers, noting that Section 20 specifically permits delegation. Thus, the Corporation was competent to seek special leave. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the case was remanded for disposal on merits.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Acquittal - 'Complainant' under Section 417(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 417(3) - When a complaint is filed by a Municipal Prosecutor under authority delegated by the Municipal Corporation pursuant to Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the Corporation itself is the real complainant and is entitled to apply for special leave to appeal against acquittal. The High Court erred in holding that only the prosecutor who physically filed the complaint could appeal; the act of the agent is the act of the principal. Held that the Municipal Corporation was the complainant and the appeal was competent. (Pages 4-5) B) Legal Maxims - Agency - Agency Principles in Criminal Complaints - Maxim 'qui facit per alium facit per se' - The principle that he who acts through another acts himself applies to determine the identity of the complainant for procedural purposes under criminal law. Where a local authority authorizes an officer to file a complaint, the authority is deemed to have instituted the complaint. Held that the Municipal Prosecutor acted as agent of the Corporation, making the Corporation the complainant. (Pages 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Delhi Municipal Corporation was competent to file an application for special leave to appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an acquittal where the complaint was filed by its authorized Municipal Prosecutor.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and remanded the case to the High Court for disposal according to law. It held that the Municipal Corporation was the complainant and could validly apply for special leave to appeal against acquittal.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Principle of agency
- qui facit per alium facit per se
- local authority as complainant under Section 417(3) CrPC when complaint filed by authorized agent
- authorization under Section 20 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- distinction between nominal complainant and real complainant
