Statutory complainant limits control prosecution; government interest alone cannot validate continuation under the Local Boards Act.

Where a special statute confines prosecution to a complaint by specified persons or a duly authorised complainant, the Government cannot continue the prosecution merely because it claims an interest in the property involved. Section 223 of the Local Boards Act restricted cognizance to the statutory complainant framework, and the proviso for information or the Magistrate's own knowledge did not apply once cognizance had been taken on a written complaint by the special officer. The civil court injunction was improper, but it did not expand governmental authority or cure the defect in complainant status. The Magistrate could proceed only within the criminal procedure rules governing the original complainant's attendance, and the order allowing the Government to carry on the prosecution was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Government could continue the prosecution under the Local Boards Act despite the complaint being initiated by the special officer and the injunction obtained against further prosecution.

Analysis: Section 223 of the Local Boards Act confined prosecution to a complaint by the President of the Local Board or a person specially authorised, and the proviso relating to cognizance on information received or on a Magistrate's own knowledge or suspicion did not apply where cognizance had been taken on a written complaint by the special officer. The Government's proprietary claim over the road did not confer a right to prosecute under the Local Boards Act. The injunction granted by the civil court was improper, but it did not enlarge the Government's authority to prosecute. The Magistrate could proceed in accordance with the criminal procedure provisions governing the complainant's attendance, but not on the basis of any supposed governmental right to continue the prosecution.

Conclusion: The Government had no to continue the prosecution, and the Magistrate's order permitting it was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the challenged order was annulled, leaving the prosecution unable to proceed at the instance of the Government.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute restricts prosecution to specified complainants or authorised persons, the Government cannot maintain the prosecution merely because it claims an ultimate interest in the property involved, and a Magistrate cannot derive jurisdiction from a complaint outside that statutory scheme.

---