Judgment :- 1. This revision petition by the accused is against his conviction under S.5 read with S.17 of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933 and sentence of a fine of Rs. 50/- by the Additional First Class Magistrate (Judicial), Kozhikode. 2. The charge against the accused was that he being the lessee of the Devi Vilas Oil Mills, Kozhikode used his premises for the purchase, sale, storage, weighment, pressing and processing of cocoanut oil and its products, which is a notified commercial crop, without a licence for the same. 3. The accused did toot dispute the charge against him but contended that the Secretary of the Arecanut Market Committee who is the complainant in the case was not competent to file the complainant since he has not been authorised by name. That contention which was repelled by the learned Magistrate is again urged before this Court. 4. The relevant provision contained in S.20 (2) of the Act reads as follows: "Prosecutions under this Act may be instituted by any person duly authorised in writing by the Market Committee in this behalf." The bye-laws passed in exercise of the powers conferred by S.19 of the Act further clarifies the matter. Bye-law 30 [2] states that: "It is open to the Committee to authorise either the Chairman or the Secretary to launch prosecution." Neither in the Act nor in the bye-law is there any provision or indication that the authorisation should be by name. Either the Chairman or the Secretary of the Society could launch a prosecution if they are authorised by the Committee by a resolution either by a general or special order. Ext. P7 is the true copy of the proceedings of the Malabar Market Committee held at the Committee Office on 19-4-1951 which authorised the Secretary to launch prosecution as and when necessary. That authorisation is in conformity with S.20 [2] and bye-law 30 [2]. 5. A similar provision contained in the U.P. Municipalities Act, namely, "some person authorised by the Board" came up for consideration in Emperor v. Abdul Razaq (AIR. 1941 Oudh 472) and it was held that some person authorised by the Board does not necessarily mean that the person authorised must be mentioned by name and those words are comprehensive enough to delegate power to an officer of the Municipal Board by virtue of his office as well. 6. 1941 Oudh 472) and it was held that some person authorised by the Board does not necessarily mean that the person authorised must be mentioned by name and those words are comprehensive enough to delegate power to an officer of the Municipal Board by virtue of his office as well. 6. There is no merit in this revision petition and it is dismissed. Dismissed.