SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(SC) 339

J.M.SHELAT, K.S.HEGDE, S.M.SIKRI
Mangulal Chunilal – Appellant
Versus
Manilal Maganlal – Respondent


Advocates:
B.R.AGRAWAL, CO., GAGRAT JANEDRA LAL, R.H.Dhebar

Judgement

SIKRI, J.: This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Gujarat is directed against the judgment and order of the said High Court in Cri. Revn. Application No. 145 of 1984 whereby the High Court allowed the application and set aside the conviction and sentence of Manilal Maganlal, one of the respondents before us. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the licence inspector, Mangulal Chunilal, was competent to file the complaint under S. 376(1)(d)(i), read with S. 392(1)(a), of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. The relevant facts are not now in dispute and are as follows : On October 10, l963, Mangulal Chunilal, licence inspector, filed a complaint against Manilal Maganlal, hereinafter referred to as the accused, alleging that the accused had carried on the work of blacksmith by manufacturing machinery, spare parts and the safe cupboards, without obtaining licence. At the end of the complaint it was stated:

"I have obtained permission for filing this complaint from the Medical Officer of Health by order No. dated 1st October, 1963."

The licence inspector had applied to the Deputy Health Officer







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top