Mandatory authorised-complaint requirement bars cognizance where the complainant lacked Central Government authorisation.

A complaint-based cognizance under the governing statute was invalid because it was not filed by an officer shown to be authorised by the Central Government. The statutory condition restricting cognizance to a written complaint by a specifically authorised officer was mandatory, and non-compliance barred the criminal court from assuming jurisdiction at the threshold. The Delhi HC therefore treated the impugned order as unsustainable, set it aside, and discharged the accused.

---

---

Issues: Whether cognizance of the offence could validly be taken when the complaint was not made by an officer authorised by the Central Government under the governing statute.

Analysis: The offence alleged was punishable under the statutory penalty provision, but cognizance of such offence was expressly restricted to a written complaint by an officer authorised by the Central Government. The person who signed and filed the complaint was not shown to have been so authorised. The requirement was mandatory and had to be satisfied before the court could take cognizance. In the absence of compliance with that condition, the criminal court could not validly proceed at the threshold.

Conclusion: Cognizance was held to be invalid and the impugned order was set aside; the accused were discharged.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes cognizance conditional upon a complaint by a specifically authorised officer, non-compliance with that mandatory requirement vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction at the threshold.

---