Authorized agent complaint treated as corporation's own act, making special leave and appeal against acquittal maintainable.

A complaint under section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 filed by a Municipal Prosecutor authorised by resolution of the Municipal Corporation was treated in law as a complaint by the Corporation itself. Because the prosecutor acted as an authorised agent, the act of filing the complaint was that of the principal, and the Corporation remained the complainant in contemplation of law. On that basis, the Corporation was competent to seek special leave and present an appeal against acquittal under section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the proceedings were maintainable at its instance.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 filed by a Municipal Prosecutor authorised by resolution of the Municipal Corporation was, in law, a complaint by the Municipal Corporation so as to entitle the Corporation to seek special leave and present the appeal under section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Analysis: Section 20 permits prosecution by a local authority or by a person authorised by it. The Municipal Corporation, being the local authority for the area, had resolved to authorise the Municipal Prosecutor to launch prosecutions under the Act. The complaint was therefore not filed by the prosecutor on his own behalf but as an authorised agent of the Corporation. In law, an act done through an authorised agent is the act of the principal, and the complaint must be treated as one instituted by the Corporation. Since the Corporation was the complainant in contemplation of law, it was competent to apply for special leave and to present the appeal against acquittal.

Conclusion: The complaint was properly instituted by the Municipal Corporation, and the appeal and special leave application were maintainable at its instance.

---