ORDER S. Malik, J. - This is a Government Appeal against the order dated 26-12-1966, passed by Shri H.M. Saran, SDM Jalaun, in Cr. Case No. 230 of 1966 dismissing the complaint and discharging the accused due to the absence of the complainant. 2. The relevant facts are that the Respondents were prosecuted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 on the complaint dated 23-7-1966 filed by R.K. Arora, Inspector of Drugs Jhansi Region, Jhansi. As is apparent from the complaint, Babu Gupta, proprietor of M/s. Gupta Medical Hall, Ramganj, Konch (District Jalaun) was found selling Tetanus Anti-toxin injections and other drugs on 11-2-1965 without a valid licence. He was also found selling Strepto Penicillin injections and Cibazol tablets without any prescription of a registered medical practitioner. These should not have been sold without the prescription of a registered medical practitioner. He was also found selling certain other drugs after the date of expiry in respect of those drugs. The details have been mentioned in the complaint. Due to the facts mentioned in the complaint Babu Ram Gupta was found to have contravened the provisions of Section 18(c) read with relevant rules punishable Under Sections 27(a) and 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 3. The learned Magistrate rightly proceeded with the case as a complaint case but during the trial after he had framed a charge against Babu Ram Gupta passed the impugned order because the complainant was absent. 4. It was rightly argued that the learned Magistrate acted illegally because the case being a warrant case could not be dismissed due to the absence of the complainant. Moreover, though the learned Magistrate wrote that he discharged the accused, it really amounted to an acquittal as the charge had already been framed against the Respondent. Even though the complainant was absent, the learned Magistrate should have proceeded with the case and decided it on merits. 5. Two contentions were raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondents. The first was that as it was a complaint case, before this appeal was filed in this Court the complainant should have obtained the necessary permission for filing the appeal as laid down in Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This contention has no force. 5. Two contentions were raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondents. The first was that as it was a complaint case, before this appeal was filed in this Court the complainant should have obtained the necessary permission for filing the appeal as laid down in Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This contention has no force. Sub-section (1) of Section 417 Code of Criminal Procedure lays down as under: Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (5) the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court, from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any court other than a High Court. 6. The words "subject to the provisions of Sub-section (5), the State Government may, in any case,...make it clear that the State Government has been empowered to file an appeal even in a complaint case and if the State Government chooses to do so, it has not to take the permission as laid down in Sub-section (3) of Section 417 Code of Criminal Procedure. The words "subject to the provisions of Sub-section (5) show that the State Government will not be able to file an appeal in a complaint case if the complainant had already applied to the High Court for the necessary permission to file an appeal Under Sub-section (3) of Section 417 Code of Criminal Procedure and the permission was refused. But if that stage was not reached, the State Government, as has been clearly laid down in Sub-section (1) of Section 417, has been empowered to file an appeal against acquittal. Moreover, if the complainant is the State Government, Sub-section (3) of Section 417 Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply when the State Government chooses to file an appeal. But if that stage was not reached, the State Government, as has been clearly laid down in Sub-section (1) of Section 417, has been empowered to file an appeal against acquittal. Moreover, if the complainant is the State Government, Sub-section (3) of Section 417 Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply when the State Government chooses to file an appeal. From a careful reading of the various provisions of Section 417 Code of Criminal Procedure, it will be seen that Sub-section (3) of Section 417 Code of Criminal Procedure applies only to a private complainant and not to cases where the State Government was the complainant as otherwise in Sub-section (1) instead of laying down "subject to the provisions of Sub-section (5)" it would have been provided subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) Therefore, it could not be said that before filing the appeal, permission should have been taken as laid down in Sub-section (3) of Section 417 Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. The second contention raised was that as the complainant was the Inspector of Drugs, he alone could have filed the appeal and as the appeal has been filed by the State Government and not by the complainant i.e. the Inspector of Drugs, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. This contention also has no force. A Drugs Inspector is a Government servant and therefore, the Drugs Inspector in this case merely acted as an agent of the State. It is apparent from the complaint that it was filed by the State through the Inspector of Drugs, Jhansi Region. The complainant, therefore, was really the State. Moreover, as has already been pointed out, Section 417(1) gives the State Government power to file an appeal "in any case". It has, therefore, the right to file an appeal even in a case started on a private complaint in which the complainant has not already applied to the High Court for leave to file an appeal and his application has been dismissed. 8. In view of the reasons discussed, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the learned Magistrate, is set aside and it is hereby directed that the case should be decided on merits.