https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288483 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. en-us Tue, 27 May 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:32:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288483 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 May 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288483