Limitation for appeal by municipal corporation turned on public servant status; shorter period applied and the appeal was time-barred.

A complaint filed through an authorised municipal prosecutor was treated in law as a complaint by the municipal corporation itself, since the prosecutor acted only in a representative capacity. Because a corporate local authority is not a public servant under criminal law, it could not claim the extended limitation period available to a public servant complainant. The applicable period was sixty days, and the appeal was filed beyond that limit even after excluding the time taken to obtain the certified copy. The appeal was therefore barred by time and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal against the order of acquittal was barred by limitation on the footing that the complainant was not a public servant and, therefore, the shorter period of limitation applied.

Analysis: The complaint had been instituted on behalf of the municipal corporation by an authorised municipal prosecutor. A corporation is a body corporate with perpetual succession and the capacity to sue and be sued in its own name. The complainant in law was the municipal corporation itself, not the individual prosecutor who acted only in a representative capacity. Since a corporate local authority is not a public servant within the meaning of the criminal law, it could not claim the extended period of limitation available to a complainant who is a public servant. The applicable limitation period was sixty days, and the appeal had been filed beyond that period even after excluding the time spent in obtaining the certified copy.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be barred by time and was dismissed.

---