Corporation Of Calcutta v. Bivabati Basu — 1968 DIGILAW 254 (CAL)

JUDGMENT 1. THIS is a reference under section 342, sub-section (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Sri A. K. Datta, Senior Municipal Magistrate, who is also a Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta. 2. THE point of law referred to this Court for its opinion runs as follows :- "is it the law, in view of the provision of section 552 (1) of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951 that that in the instant petition of complaint the facsimile signature of the Commissioner of calcutta Corporation should be accepted as proper and valid execution of the petition of complaint by the commissioner, so that the Court may proceed upon such a petition of complaint to try the accused for the offence as charged therein ?" The facts of the case as mentioned in the letter of reference of the learned Magistrate are as follows : -The Case No. 468b of 1964 before the Senior Municipal Magistrate, calcutta, appointed under section 579 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, was initiated upon an application for summons under section 537, read with rule 5 (1) of Schedule XVII of the calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. Such application is in a printed form with six columns. The first column - name and designation of the complainant -contains the name of Sri Kalidas Basu, chief Insecure Building Surveyor. The second column is for the name and residence of accused wherein appears the name of Sm. Biva Bati Basu, 1/1a, maratha Ditch Lane, Shambazar, calcutta. The third column is for the offence complained of and date of commission. In this column, the allegations of facts are : Failing to comply with the requisition of notice under rule 5 (1) of Sch. XVII, served on 28. 12. 63 to take down the cracked parapet walls on the roof and by securing and repairing the building adequately by clanging its iron rafters with new ones and repairing the cracks in the walls and by half terracting (Sic.) the roof to prevent leakage and by repairing the broken rain water pipes for better drainage and by plastering the inside and outside walls where necessary and by doing all other works to make the building safe and stable as the same lies in a dangerous condition. 3. LASTLY inspected on 10. 3. 64 when it was found that the requisition of notice under Rule 5 (1) of Sch. 3. LASTLY inspected on 10. 3. 64 when it was found that the requisition of notice under Rule 5 (1) of Sch. XVII, has not been complied with. 4. THE 4th column is for the plea of accused which is blank. The 5th column is for offence proved and the 6th column is for order. This application for summons was filled on 20-3-64 and at the bottom of the application form in the left hand corner there is the printed word 'approved' with the signature of one k. D. Basu with date 16-3-64 and below that word are the words 'ch. I. B. S. '. To the right hand side of the said signature, is a signature with the date reading 'priya Guha, CA 19-3-64. ' To its right hand side are the printed words "commissioner, Corporation of calcutta". Above those words, appears a facsimile impression of a rubber stamp reading as 'b. Ghosh'. To its right hand side there is a signature, reading as S. Roy, 10-3-64, and down this signature, are the letters and figures I. B. S. (IV. The learned magistrate proceeded to try the accused sm. Biva Bati Basu for an offence allegedly committed in violation of sub-rule (1), Rule 5 of Sch. XVII of the calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 read with section 537 of the same Act. The allegation of facts constituting the offence, as we have already observed, appear in column 3 of the application for summons referred to above. The accused had put up appearance through her agent before the Municipal magistrate. The agent took several adjournments in the case for effecting compliance with the Corporation's; requisition but ultimately failed. Thereafter, the Magistrate proceeded to hold the trial upon the charge made by the corporation. In course of the proceeding before the learned Magistrate, the accused through her Advocate raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the case. It was contended by the learned Advocate of the accused before the learned Magistrate that the application for summons should not be considered as a complaint in writing lawfully made by and on behalf of the Corporation, under section. 585, clause (a) of the Calcutta Municipal act, 1951 since the application for issue of summons taken for a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, had not been signed by the Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation. 585, clause (a) of the Calcutta Municipal act, 1951 since the application for issue of summons taken for a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, had not been signed by the Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation. The Calcutta corporation conceded before the learned magistrate that the Chief Insecure building Surveyor, Sri K. D. Basu, the city Architect, Sri Priya Guha and the insecure Building Surveyor, Sri S. Roy had no authority to take proceedings under section 585, clause (a) of the calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 against the accused by virtue of the power, delegated to them or to any of them by the commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation under section 34 of the Calcutta Municipal act, 1951. The Corporation, however, contended before the learned magistrate that in exercise of the power, as embodied in section 33 of the calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (the section quoted should have been section 30, but not 33 of the Act) the Corporation had duly delegated its power to take proceedings under section 585 (a) of the Act to the Commissioner. It was further contended on behalf of the Corporation before the learned Magistrate that the facsimile rubber stamp impression of the signature of the Commissioner, appearing at the bottom of the application for summons was sufficient execution of such application by the Commissioner and should be deemed to be so, in view of the provision of section 552 (1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. So, the contention of the Calcutta corporation before the learned magistrate was that the application for summons or rather the complaint in writing in the present case, was valid in law, and was perfectly operative to charge the accused with the offence as mentioned in the application for issue of summons. 5. ON those facts, the learned magistrate formulated the point of law already quoted in this order, and invited opinion of this Court on such point of law in his letter of reference submitted to this Court under section 432, subsection (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. THE application for summons in column 1' clearly records Sri Kalidas basu, Chief Insecure Building surveyor as the complainant. In this column with the heading, name and designation of the complainant, neither the name of the Corporation of Calcutta, nor that of the Commissioner with his official designation appears. 6. THE application for summons in column 1' clearly records Sri Kalidas basu, Chief Insecure Building surveyor as the complainant. In this column with the heading, name and designation of the complainant, neither the name of the Corporation of Calcutta, nor that of the Commissioner with his official designation appears. The first signatory to the left hand corner at the bottom of the application for summons is K. D. Basu, the Complainant. So, k. D. Basu, Chief Insecure Building scrveyor with his eyes open signed the application for summons with a clear knowledge that the complainant was neither the Calcutta Corporation nor the Commissioner of the Corporation but he himself. The section 585 of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951 amongst other provisions make the following relevant provisions :- "the Corporation may- (a) take or withdraw from proceedings against any person who is charged with- (i) any offence against this Act or any rule or by-law made thereunder ; other provisions in the Section are not relevant for the purpose of this reference. 7. SECTION 30 of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951, reads as follows:- "the Corporation may by resolution passed at a meeting delegate to the Commissioner any of its powers, duties or functions under this Act or any rule, by-law or regulation made thereunder." We were shown the resolution of the Calcutta Corporation by which the corporation's powers to take or withdraw from proceedings for and on behalf of the Corporation against any person who is charged with any offence against the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 or any rule or by-rule made thereunder had been delegated to the Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation. There is no dispute on this point. 8. SECTION 34 of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951 speaks of delegation, to any municipal officer or servant any of the powers, duties or functions of the Commissioner, except those conferred or imposed upon or vested in him by several sections enumerated therein. The powers of the Calcutta corporation under section 585, Clause (a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, can, under the provisions of the Section 30 of the Act and the resolution of the calcutta Corporation passed thereunder, be delegated only to the Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation, but to no other municipal officer or servant. The powers of the Calcutta corporation under section 585, Clause (a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, can, under the provisions of the Section 30 of the Act and the resolution of the calcutta Corporation passed thereunder, be delegated only to the Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation, but to no other municipal officer or servant. Section 34 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 does not authorise the Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation to delegate his delegated powers, duties or functions to any other municipal officer or servant. 9. THE learned Advocate for the calcutta Corporation admitted before the learned Magistrate that the Commissioner had not delegated his delegated power under section 585, clause (a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 to any one of the signatories to the application for summons, not even to k. D. Basu, the complainant. 10. SECTION 585, clause (a) read with section 30 of the Calcutta Municipal act, 1951 and the resolution of the calcutta Corporation passed thereunder, clearly make it out that only the commissioner of the Calcutta corporation and none else, for and on behalf of the Calcutta Corporation, may take or withdraw from any proceedings against any person who is charged with any offence against any provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 or any rule or by-law made thereunder. Our views find support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) Ballabhadas Agarwala v. J. C. Chakravarty, A. I. R. 1960 S. C. 576. But the complaint, as the learned magistrate considered the application for summons to be so, was made in writing by the Complainant, K. D. Basu, Chief Insecure Building surveyor, a municipal officer, who signed such application for summons as the complainant. In column 1' of the application for summons, treated by the learned Magistrate as a complaint in writing, neither the Corporation, of calcutta nor the Commissioner of the said Corporation as the delegate of the corporation figured as the complainant. The Corporation of Calcutta, created by the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, is a creature of statue, and the specific powers to institute, defend or withdraw from legal proceedings were needed and has to be provided for, under and by the Calcuttta Municipal act, 1951, which called the Corporation into existence. The Corporation of Calcutta, created by the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, is a creature of statue, and the specific powers to institute, defend or withdraw from legal proceedings were needed and has to be provided for, under and by the Calcuttta Municipal act, 1951, which called the Corporation into existence. Clause (a) of Section 585 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, as we read it, contains obligatory provisions, but the powers given thereunder to do the various acts specified therein can, in our opinion, only be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reference in the connexion may be made to the decision of a Division bench of this Court in the case (2)Sisir Kumar Mitra v. Corporation of calcutta reported in XXX, Calcutta weekly Notes, page 598. By making the application for issue of summons or as matter of that a complaint in writing as in the present case, the corporation of Calcutta could take proceedings against the accused opposite party Sm. Biva Bati Basu through its only delegate, the Commissioner of the calcutta Corporation, a public servant, within the meaning of section 605 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and read with Section 21, clause 12 (b) of the Indian Penal Code. The taking of proceedings against any person who is charged with any offence against the calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 or any rule or by-law made thereunder, by the calcutta Corporation through its delegate, the Commissioner, a public servant must have to be made by a complaint before a Municipal Magistrate, appointed under section 579 of the calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The limitation of time for making "a complaint of an offence" before the Municipal magistrate, has been imposed by section 582 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The Commissioner, therefore, may make an oral complaint or a complaint in writing before a Municipal Magistrate as the delegate of the Calcutta corporation for and on behalf of the complainant Calcutta Corporation under the provisions of section 585 (a) read with section 30 of the Calcutta Municipal act, 1951 and the resolution passed thereunder. The Commissioner, therefore, may make an oral complaint or a complaint in writing before a Municipal Magistrate as the delegate of the Calcutta corporation for and on behalf of the complainant Calcutta Corporation under the provisions of section 585 (a) read with section 30 of the Calcutta Municipal act, 1951 and the resolution passed thereunder. If the Commissioner of the Calcutta corporation, a public servant, in exercise of his delegated powers, make an application for summons or as matter of that, a complaint in writing before the Municipal Magistrate, he does that act in discharge of his official duties of making a complaint in writing as a public servant within the meaning of clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Clause (aa) of section 200 of the code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows : - "when the complaint is made in writing, nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require the examination of a complaint in any case in which the complaint has been made by a Court or by a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. " 11. THE making of an application for summons or as matter of that a complaint in writing by the Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation in discharge of his official duties at once attracts the operation of the provisions of clause (aa) of section 200 of the code of Criminal Procedure, which exempts examination by the Magistrate of the public servant making the complaint in writing in discharge of his official duties. If the Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation as the delegate of the Calcutta Corporation, the complainant, would have subscribed his own signature with his own hand in the application for summons, treated by the learned Magistrate as a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties the document could have been then lawfully considered as "a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties" within the meaning of Clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure. 12. SECTION 3, clause (56) of the general Clauses Act, 1897 reads as follows : - "sign with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall, with reference to a person who is unable to write his name, include "mark" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions. 12. SECTION 3, clause (56) of the general Clauses Act, 1897 reads as follows : - "sign with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall, with reference to a person who is unable to write his name, include "mark" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions. " Generally speaking, signature is the writing or otherwise affixing a person's name, or a mark to write his name by himself, or by his authority, with the intention of authenticating a document as being that of or as binding on the person whose name or mark is so written or affixed. The signature subscribed with his own hand by a public servant on the complaint in writing while making such "a complaint in discharge of his official duties" before a Magistrate within the meaning of clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must appear on such complaint in writing in order to set a seal of its authenticity as to the maker of the complaint and tine source from which the allegation made in the complaint in writing, emantes. Unless a public servant is either illiterate or is otherwise incapacitated from writing, he must subscribe his own signature with his own hand on a complaint in writing made before a Magistrate in discharge of his official duties within the meaning of clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of criminal Procedure. Accordingly, a complaint in writing, made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, if and when, signed by such public servant with his own signature, subscribed with his own hand, is presented before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall have at once to determine the prima facie authenticity of the complaint so made in writing coming from the public servant concerned. If the magistrate is satisfied that the complaint in writing presented before him bearing the signature, subscribed thereon by the public servant with his own hand has actually been made by the public servant concerned, he shall not examine the public servant in view of the provisions of clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Commissioner of the Calcutta corporation may make an oral complaint before a Municipal Magistrate. The Commissioner of the Calcutta corporation may make an oral complaint before a Municipal Magistrate. But if as a public servant he makes a complaint in writing in discharge of his official duties, as in the present case, for and on behalf of the complainant, the Calcutta Corporation, he is to follow the procedure of making a complaint in writing to be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties within the meaning of clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since there is no provision in the Calcutta Municipal act, 1951 prescribing any procedure for making a complaint in writing by the Calcutta Corporation through its delegate, the Commissioner, a public servant in discharge of his official duties. Accordingly, when the commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation, as a public servant, makes an application for summons or as matter of that a complaint in writing before a municipal Magistrate, he does so as a public servant in discharge of clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure and such application for summons or as a matter of that a complaint in writing must bear the signature of the Commissioner subscribed by him with his own hand in order that the Municipal Magistrate on presentation of such application may lawfully exempt examination of the commissioner cf the Calcutta Corporation in view of the provisions of clause (aa)of section 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure. In the application for summons as in this case, or as matter of that in the complaint in writing, the corporation of Calcutta should have figured in column 1' of such application as the complainant and such application, being a complaint in writing should have borne the signature of the commissioner of the Calcutta corporation, subscribed by him with his own hand, a public servant, authorised by the Calcutta Corporation to make a complaint in writing for and on behalf of the Calcutta Corporation in discharge of his official duties delegated to him under the provisions of section 585, clause (a) read with section 30 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and the resolution passed thereunder by the calcutta Corporation. The application for summons or as matter of that the complaint in writing, in the present case, does not bear the signature of the commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation subscribed by him with his own hand and as such, it is not a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties within the meaning of clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. THE complainant, K. D. Basu, though a public servant within the meaning of section 605 of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951, had no authority to make the application for summons or as matter of that the complaint in writing, in the present case, as a public servant in discharge of his official duties. The application for summons, or as matter of that the complaint in writing in the present case, having had not been signed by the Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation, subscribing his signature with his own hand thereon as a public servant making a complaint in writing in discharge of his official duties by virtue of the powers delegated to him by the Calcutta corporation cannot be considered lawfully as "a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties" within the meaning of clause (aa) of section 200 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 14. WE notice that neither K. D. Basu, the complainant, nor the commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation was examined by the learned Municipal magistrate, when he received the application for summons or as matter of that the complaint in writing bearing the signature of the complainant on the application and the fascimile, rubber stamp impression of the signature of the Commissioner of the Calcutta corporation. The learned Magistrate might have thought that he need not examine either the complainant, K. D. Basu, or the Commissioner of the Calcutta corporation in view of the provisions in clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure upon a mistaken impression of law in this regard, when, however, the application for summons or as matter of that the complaint in writing in the present case, was not made lawfully by a public servant in discharge of his official duties. If in column 1' of the application for summons, the Corporation of Calcutta would have figured as the complainant, and if the Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation would have subserved on such application his own signature with his own hand, such application or as matter of that the complaint in writing could have then been lawfully accepted and acted upon by the learned Municipal Magistrate as being "a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties," within the meaning of clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1898, in view of the provisions of section 585, clause (a)and section 30 of the Calcutta Municipal act, 1951, read with the resolution of the Calcutta Corporation passed in that behalf. On the application for summons or as matter of that the complaint in writing in the present case, which has not been lawfully made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties within the meaning of clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned municipal Magistrate shall not proceed upon such application for summons or as matter of that the complaint in writing, as in the present case, to try the accused opposite-party of the offence charged. 15. ON behalf of the Calcutta corporation our attention was drawn to a Single Bench decision of this court in the case of (3) Brajendra kumar Chakravarty v. B. Bose reported in 98 C. L. J. page 101 and also to an unreported decision of a Single Bench of this Court in the of (4) M/s. Macfarlane and Company Limited v The Calcutta corporation decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Das in Criminal Revision no. 1170 of 1966 on 25th September, 1967. In Brajendra Kumar chakravarty's case, the complaint was actually filed by the Insecure Building Surveyor and was countersigned by the chief Insecure Building Surveyor and the Commissioner's facsimile signature appeared on it, it was argued before the learned Judge that there was no evidence in that case to prove that the facsimile signature was, in fact, the signature of the Commissioner. So, the contention put forward in that case was that the complaint remained a complaint of the Insecure Building surveyor and was not a complaint on behalf of the Calcutta Corporation. So, the contention put forward in that case was that the complaint remained a complaint of the Insecure Building surveyor and was not a complaint on behalf of the Calcutta Corporation. The learned Judge quoted section 552 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and observed at page 106 of the report "I do not think the law requires that there should be some independent evidence in view of the special provisions contained in the Municipal Act itself to show that the facsimile is the facsimile of the signature of the commissioner. " The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, failed. So, in that reported case the moot point was that there was no evidence that the facsimile signature appearing on the complaint was actually the fascimile of the signature of the Commissioner. In the case now referred to us: for our opinion, the contention is thai accepting the facsimile signature on the application for summons to be the facsimile of the signature of the commissioner whether the application for summons or as matter of that the complaint in writing would be valid in law since it did not bear the signature of the Commissioner subscribed by him thereon with his own hand. That point! is not covered by the decision in (S)Brajendra Kumar Chakravarty's case. In (4) Macfarlane's case (unreported), the contention raised by the learned advocate was that the prosecution was not properly initiated as the complaint was signed by the Commissioner by a facsimile. The learned Judge sitting in the Single Bench quoted section 562 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and then observed. "this is a prosecution by way of application for summons under section 437 (I) 537 (Sic) of the Calcutta Muicipal Act and, therefore, the facsimile signature of the Commissioner is sufficient for initiatng the proceeding. This objection also is overruled. "the learned Judge did not set forth any reason in this Judgment on analysing the contents and the scope of section 552 of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951 vis-a-vis the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure relating to a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties before a magistrate competent to take cognizance of an offence under the general or any special law against any person, upon such complaint. Section 582 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, sub-section (I) reads as follows : - "no person shall be liable to punishment for any offence against this Act or against any rule or by-law made thereunder, unless complaint of such offence is made before a Magistrate within three months, or, if the offence be against the provisions of section 177, within six months, next after - (a) the date of commission of such offence, or (b) the date on which the commission or existence of such offence was first brought to the notice of the corporation or the Commissioner. " 16. THE aforesaid provisions put a limitation of time for making of a complaint of offences before the municipal magistrate. We notice the words "complaint of such offence". We do not find any provision in the Calcutta municipal Act. 1951 laying down the procedure for the making of a complaint of an offence. We also do not find any provision in the Calcutta Municipal act, 1951 laying down the procedure for making either any oral or written complaint by the Corporation on its delegate, the Commissioner, before a municipal Magistrate against any person for violation of any penal provision of the Calcutta Municipal Act and the rules or by-laws made thereunder. If a complaint in writing for any offence against any municipal law, is made by the Commissioner, as the delegate of the Calcutta Corporation, subscribing thereon his own signature with his own hand in discharge of his official duties as a public servant, having the delegated power of the Calcutta corporation to make such complaint in writing, the document would then be "a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties" within clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon as such a document so authenticated by the signature of such a public servant subscribed thereon with his own hand, the Magistrate shall take cognizance of the offence against the offender without examining such public servent i.e. the Commissioner and if satisfied, may issue summons under section 204 of the Code of criminal Procedure for the appearance of the offender to answer the charge. The act of the Commissioner in making a complaint in writing, as a public servant in discharge of his official duties, is not an act prescribed by any of the provisions, laid down in the calcutta Municipal Act or any rules or bylaws made thereunder, but is an act prescribed by the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898. Section 190. sub-section (1), clause (a) of the Code of Criminal procedure says that any Presidency magistrate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . any other Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf, may take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence. Section 190, sub-section (1), clause (a)is to be read with section 200, clause (aa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1898) when a complaint of facts has been made in writing by a public servant in discharge of his official duty in order that the Magistrate who receives such complaint in writing, may at once, be satisfied upon examining the signature of the public servant concerned subscribed on the document that the complaint in writing had actually been made by the public servant concerned in discharge of his official duties, and may at once decide that the public servant need not be examined as provided for by clause (aa)of section 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Accordingly, a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty must, when he is neither illiterate, nor incapacitated from writing, put down his own signature with his own hand on the document to make it a complaint in writing made by such public servant in discharge of his official duties. 17. Accordingly, a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty must, when he is neither illiterate, nor incapacitated from writing, put down his own signature with his own hand on the document to make it a complaint in writing made by such public servant in discharge of his official duties. 17. SECTION 551 of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951 reads as follows: -"whenever under this Act or under any rule or by-law made thereunder the doing or the omitting to do anything or the validity of anything depends upon the approval, sanction, consent, concurrence, declaration, opinion or satisfaction of (a) the Corporation or any Standing Committee or (b) the Commissioner or any municipal officer, as the case may be, a written document signed, (i) in cases referred to in clause (a) by the Secretary to the Corporation, and (ii) in cases referred to in clause (b) by the Commissioner or the said municipal officer, purporting to convey or set forth such approval, sanction, consent, concurrence, declaration, opinion or satisfaction, shall be sufficient evidence thereof. 18. SECTION 551 of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951 lays down the procedure for proving approval, sanction, consent, concurrence, declaration, opinion or satisfaction of the Corporation or any Standing Committee or of the Commissioner or any municipal officer, relating to the doing or the omitting to do anything or the validity of anything done under the Calcutta municipal Act or under any rule or by-law made thereunder. Signature of the Commissioner upon a document of approval, sanction, concurrence, consent etc. of the Commissioner would be sufficient proof of Commissioner's approval, consent etc. and such a document must be a document to be made under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 or under any rule or by-law made thereunder, but not any other document, made under any other law. Signature of the Commissioner upon a document of approval, sanction, concurrence, consent etc. of the Commissioner would be sufficient proof of Commissioner's approval, consent etc. and such a document must be a document to be made under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 or under any rule or by-law made thereunder, but not any other document, made under any other law. Section 552 (1) of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951 reads as follows: - "every license, written permission, notice, bill, summons or other document which is required by this Act or by any rule or by-law made thereunder to bear the signature of the Commissioner or any municipal officer, shall be deemed to be properly signed if it bears a facsimile of the signature of the Commissioner or such municipal officer, as the case may be, stamped thereupon." In sub-section (1) of section 552 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, we notice the words "every license, written permission, notice, bill, summons or other document which is required by this Act or by any rule or by-law made thereunder to bear the signature of the Commissioner. . . . . . . . shall be deemed to be properly signed if it bears a facsimile of the signature of the Commissioner or such municipal officer, as the case may be, stamped thereupon. Each of the words "license, written permission, notice, bill, summons or other document" in sub-section I, of Sec. 552 of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951, is governed by the words "which is required by this act" (meaning thereby Calcutta Municipal act, 1951) or by any rule or by-law made thereunder." The application for summons, as in this case, is neither a license, nor a written permission, nor a notice nor a bill, nor a summons. The words "other document" are controlled by the words "which is required by this Act or by any rule or by-law made thereunder". An application for summons, as in this case, is a document purporting to be a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties. The words "other document" are controlled by the words "which is required by this Act or by any rule or by-law made thereunder". An application for summons, as in this case, is a document purporting to be a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties. So the application for summons, or as matter of that the complaint in writing, made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties is not a document to be made by the Commissioner a public servant subscribing thereon his own signature under any of the provisions of the calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 or any rule or by-law made thereunder. But an application for summons or as matter of that a complaint in writing, made by the Commissioner a public servant, in discharge of his official duties, within the meaning of the clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure is a document made under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and cannot therefore be considered as included within the expression "other document which is required by this act or by any rule or by-law made thereunder" occurring in sub-section (1) of section 552 of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951. An application for summons or as matter of that a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty as in this case, is a document, that requires to be authenticated by the signature of the public-servant subscribed by him with own hand. So, in the present case, the signature of none else but of the Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation, subscribed by him with his own hand should have appeared on the application for summons since it is the Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation who alone, by virtue of his delegated powers, could take proceedings against the accused under section 585 (a), read with section 537 of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951. Accordingly, in our view, the application for summons, i.e. the complaint in writing cannot be considered as being included within the expression "other document which is required by this Act or by any rule or by-law made thereunder," and such a document is a document within clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Accordingly, in our view, the application for summons, i.e. the complaint in writing cannot be considered as being included within the expression "other document which is required by this Act or by any rule or by-law made thereunder," and such a document is a document within clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. In the present case, the complaint in writing, i.e. the application for summons was, therefore, required to bear the signature of the Commissioner, subscribed by him with his own hand and the facsimile impression of the signature of the Commissioner appearing on the application for summons did not make that document "a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties" within the clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of criminal Procedure. Therefore, before the learned Magistrate in the present case, there is no complaint who may lawfully take the proceedings against, the accused persons under section 585 clause (a) of the Calcutta Municipal act, 1951 for the offence complained of, punishable under section 537 of that act and the application for summons or as matter of that the complaint in writing filed before the learned magistrate is not a "complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties" within clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate, upon the application for summons, filed before him, acquired no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence upon the allegations made in column (3) of such application. On a careful consideration of the law, we could not persuade ourselves to accept and to agree with the views of the respective learned judges of the Single Bench of this Court who decided each of the two cases referred to and considered by us. 19. WE notice that in column 3' of the application for summons where the allegations of facts have been set forth against the accused, there is no prayer made by the complainant for the Magistrate to take action for violation of any specific provision of the calcutta Municipal Act. 19. WE notice that in column 3' of the application for summons where the allegations of facts have been set forth against the accused, there is no prayer made by the complainant for the Magistrate to take action for violation of any specific provision of the calcutta Municipal Act. Complaint, as we have already pointed out in section 4, sub-section (1), clause (h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down, requires to contain the allegations of facts constituting an offence with a view to the Magistrate's taking action under the Code of Criminal procedure. The complainant, therefore, is required to pray before the learned magistrate that upon the allegation made in the complaint constituting ;an offence, the Magistrate should consider the desirability of taking action against the offender under the Code of Criminal procedure by issuing such process as law enjoins. In column 3' of the application for summons for the complainant was required to pray before the learned Magistrate to issue summons against the offender for violation of the requisition notice punishable under section 537, read with sub-rule (1), Rule 5 of Sch. XVII of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951. No such prayer was made in that column. Such irregularity must be avoided in future. 20. WE are, therefore, of the view that the application for summons or as matter of that the complaint in writing bearing the facsimile rubber stamp impression of the signature of the commissioner of the Calcutta corporation is not "a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties" within the meaning of clause (aa) of section 200 of the code of Criminal Procedure, and as such, upon the application for summons or as matter of that the complaint in writing presented before the learned Municipal Magistrate, the learned Municipal Magistrate acquired no jurisdiction to try the accused -opposite party for the alleged violation of the provisions of sub-rule (1)of Rule 5 of Sch. XVII of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951 punishable under section 537 of the said Act. XVII of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951 punishable under section 537 of the said Act. The fascimile rubber stamp impression of the signature of the commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation on the application for summons, or as matter of that the complaint in writing cannot, in cur view, be accept ed as the signature subscribed by the commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation with his own hand on "a complaint in writing made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties" within the meaning of clause (aa) of section 200 of the Code of criminal Procedure. 21. THE learned Magistrate shall make appropriate orders in the case in accordance v/ith the views expressed by us in this order, disposing of the reference. Let a copy of this order with the Records of the case be sent to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the case as required by the provisions of section 433 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1898. AMARESH ROY, J : 22. I agree, that point of law referred by the learned Magistrate in this Reference under section 432 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be answered according to the view expressed by my learned Brother that (1) A petition of complaint in writing by a public servant must bear his signature made under his own hand, and a fascimile rubber-stamp of his signature cannot be accepted as proper or valid execution of the petition of complaint. (2) A complaint alleging any offence against the provisions of Calcutta municipal Act or any rule or by-law made thereunder can only be made by Corporation of Calcutta as complainant under section 585 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. (3) Power to make such complaint is a function under Calcutta Municipal act. Making of the complaint is governed by Criminal Procedure code. The complaint may be signed by the Commissioner under authority delegated under section 30 of the Calcutta Municipal act, for and on behalf of the complainant, Corporation of calcutta. Commissioner cannot delegate that delegated authority under section 34 of the Calcutta municipal Act. (4) The signature on the petition of complaint is required by section 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure and not by Calcutta Municipal Act; as such section 552 of the Calcutta municipal Act does not apply. Commissioner cannot delegate that delegated authority under section 34 of the Calcutta municipal Act. (4) The signature on the petition of complaint is required by section 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure and not by Calcutta Municipal Act; as such section 552 of the Calcutta municipal Act does not apply. Therefore, facsimile of the signature of the Commissioner stamped on the complaint cannot be deemed to be properly signed by the Commissioner. (5) Application for summons filed as complaint in this case mentioning as complainant name of a person other than Corporation of Calcutta and not having been signed by the hand of the Commissioner and also for the reason that it is not in proper form prescribed by Criminal procedure Code is not complaint on which Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence alleged or try the accused person. The learned Magistrate shall make appropriate orders to dispose of the case conformably to the visws expressed above by us.