ORDER SHIVDAYAL, J. 1. The petitioner was convicted by the Municipal Magistrate (Mobile Court) Lashkar for offences under the Municipal bye-laws (the Traffic Bye-laws framed under the Gwalior Municipal Act, Samvat 1968 and the Wheel Tax Bye-laws framed under the Gwalior Municipal Act, Samvat 1993, which bye-laws are alleged by the prosecution to be in force and are deemed to be so under the M. B. Corporation Act No. 23 of 1956 hereinafter called the Act). The complaint against the petitioner was that he was riding a bicycle which had no bell and on which the token indicating the payment of wheel-tax was not exhibited. The learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and imposed a fine of Rs. 3 on him. His appeal has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior. 2. In my opinion the whole trial was illegal in asmuch as the learned Magistrate could not take cognisance of the offence. Section 396 of the Act runs thus: "No Magistrate shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder, except on a complaint signed by the commissioner or by any Municipal Officer or the officer in charge of a police station authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf either generally in regard to such offences or particularly in regard to specific offences or offences of a special class" It is contended by Shri Mishra that the complaint was filed by a Sub Inspector of Police, but it does not appear that he was an officer in-charge of a police-station, nor does it appear that it had been authorised by the Commissioner to file a complaint either generally in regard to all such offences or particularly in regard to these specific offences. The learned counsel for the corporation is unable to point out to me anything on record to show that the S. I. was so authorised Nor is the learned Counsel able to produce any notification by which the S. I. who signed the complaint has been generally or particularly authorised to do so. This objection was raised before the appellate Court also, but on the authority of the decision in 1957 J L J 89, it was overruled. This objection was raised before the appellate Court also, but on the authority of the decision in 1957 J L J 89, it was overruled. Before me also reliance was placed on the decision of my learned brother A. H. Khan J. In that case a complaint had been filed under section 193 of the M. B. Municipalities Act, 1954 No objection was taken by the accused before the trial Magistrate. It was held with the aid of S. 114 of the Evidence Act that it was no duty of the prosecution to prove that the prosecution had been ordered by the person authorised because the presumption was that all judicial acts were regularly performed. In my opinion that case has no application here. The wording of S. 193 of the M. B. Municipal Act, 1954, was quite different from the mandatory requirement contained in section 396 of the Corporation Act. The opening words "no Magistrate shall take cognisance" lay down as a condition precedent that the complaint must be signed by one of those named in the section. Unless and until that condition is fulfilled, the Magistrate is not seized of the matter. Even if the accused does not take that objection it cannot be waived because it strikes at the root and renders the whole trial a nullity. It is the giving of the authority to sign the complaint on behalf of the Commissioner which confers jurisdiction on the Court to try the case. In its absence the Court is not of competent jurisdiction. I rely on the authority in Gokal Chand Dwarka Das vs. King, 75 Indian appeals 30. There it was also held that the defect could not be cured by section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That was a case where sanction for prosecution was required by the law, but the same principle applies here. No amount of waiver can vest a Court with jurisdiction which it has not and the defect of want of jurisdiction cannot be cured by section 537 of the Code. I also rely for this proposition on the dictum in Ballabh Das Agarwala vs. J. C. Chakarvarti, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 576 where the conviction of the accused on the basis of a complaint filed by the Health Officer of the Hawrah Municipality who had not been delegated powers to institute criminal proceedings under the Act was set aside. I also rely for this proposition on the dictum in Ballabh Das Agarwala vs. J. C. Chakarvarti, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 576 where the conviction of the accused on the basis of a complaint filed by the Health Officer of the Hawrah Municipality who had not been delegated powers to institute criminal proceedings under the Act was set aside. In that case it is laid down: "The absence of a proper complaint was not a mere defect or an irregularity curable u/s 537 Cr. P. C. it affected jurisdiction and initiation of proceedings." 3. I must, therefore, hold, as I do so, that on a complaint filed by a Sub-Inspector of Police, no cognisance can be taken up by a Magistrate of any offence under the Corporation Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder unless and until the S. I. is an officer in charge of a police station and, further, he is authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf either generally in regard to all such offences or particularly in regard to that specific offence or that special class to which it belongs. 4. It is unnecessary to go into the other questions raised before me by Shri Misra. 5. In the result, revision is allowed. The whole trial is quashed for want of a complaint signed by a competent officer. Petition allowed