Judgment : A common question of law since emerged out of both these revisions on the identical facts on the basis of which the prosecution has been launched against the respondents herein who are different in identity, with the consent of the Bar I have proposed to dispose of these revisions by means of a common judgment. 2. Both the revision petitions filed under Secs.397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure canvassing the legality and propriety of the judgments rendered by the learned Sessions Judge of Salem made in Criminal Revision Nos.58 and 59 of 1988 respectively and whereupon terminating the criminal prosecutions launched against the respondents herein initiated by the Town Planning Officer, Salem Municipality, Salem the revision petitioner herein, for an offence of violating the direc -tions contemplated under Sec.199 of the District Municipalities Act punishable under Sec.317 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, on the allegation that both the respondents without obtaining the proper sanction and licence from the Salem Municipality for putting up constructions of their respective building within the jurisdiction of the Salem Town and thereby violating the provisions of Sec.199 of the District Municipalities Act which was made punishable under Sec.317 of the District Municipalities Act. 3. The short facts of the prosecution involved in this case is culled out from the records of both courts below are stated as follows: 4. As these Respondents put up new constructions in the residences situated within the municipal limits of Salem Town under the jurisdiction of Salem Municipality and without obtaining the required licence and the plan approved by the authorities concerned as contemplated by the Municipal Rules, on the claim authorisation by the Commissioner of Salem Municipality, the Town Planning Officer concerned filed complaint against both the respondents herein, separately in two cases before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Salem namely the trial court for contravening Sec.199 which is punishable under Sec.317 of the District Municipalities Act. It appears, however, the respondents appeared before the trial court filed an application requesting the trial court to send for the written authorisation given by the Commissioner of Salem Municipality to the complainant the Town Planning Officer, the revision petitioner herein, to produce before court so as to substantiate the validity to launch the criminal prosecution, however, instead of which the said request has not been complied with and the trial was commenced against the respondents. The complainant, the Town Planning Officer-the revision petitioner herein was examined as P.W.1 and the building inspectors concerned were examined as P. W.2 and both of them were cross examined on behalf of the accused. It is pertinent to note at this stage that during the cross examination both P.Ws.1 and 2 were not confronted with the question that the written authorisation by the Commissioner of Salem Municipality authorising the revision petitioner- the Town Planning Officer to launch criminal proceedings inspite of the petition to produce the same has not been produced before the trial court and that factum has been admitted by P.Ws.1 and 2. In fact, P.W.2 went one step further and has stated that there was no authorisation of any kind given by the Commissioner of the Salem Municipality given to the complainant the Town Planning Officer who was examined as P.W.1 to launch the criminal proceeding. Then, the evidence for the prosecution was closed and the trial was adjourned and posted for the defence witness. During that stage a petition was filed on behalf of the complainant for the recalling of P.W.2 to produce certain “important documents” as was evident from the application as well as the judgment and orders delivered by the court below. It appears that the said application, though was resisted on behalf of the accused/ respondents, but however allowed by the learned trial Magistrate on the ground of providing an opportunity to the complainant to produce the documents. This order by the trial Magistrate was made in C.M.P.No.2211 of l988 in S.T.R.No.2179 of 1988 and in C.M.P.No.2212 of 1988 in S.T.R.No.2231 of 1986 dated 29. This order by the trial Magistrate was made in C.M.P.No.2211 of l988 in S.T.R.No.2179 of 1988 and in C.M.P.No.2212 of 1988 in S.T.R.No.2231 of 1986 dated 29. 1988 and against which both the respondents respectively herein preferred revisions before the learned Sessions Judge, Salem and on reassessing the entire case records and the adduced evidence and documents, the learned Sessions Judge found that the very launching of the criminal prosecution by P.W.1 against the respondents have no legal basis and without any proper authorisation and that therefore, not only allowed the revision setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate recalling P. W.2, but also terminated the entire proceedings launched against the respondents in both these revision petitions in toto, and that challenging the legality and propriety of the same, the Town Planning Officer, viz., the complainant P.W.1 has directed these revisions before this Court. 5. Mr.Umapathy, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, in consonance with the grounds of revision attacked the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge mainly on the ground that though the revisions preferred by the respondents/accused before the learned Sessions Judge, Salem was only to challenge the propriety and legality of the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate passed on an interlocutory application and that as such it is to be deemed that such an order passed in such an interlocutory mandatory application cannot be the final one, warranting any revision to be filed as contemplated under Sec.397, Crl.P.C. is a clear bar and that therefore, the lower appellate court has clearly fell into an error and as such it is liable to be set aside. The second contention urged by Mr.Umapathy, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Salem has no legal sanction and propriety in the context that in so far as the revisions filed before the learned Sessions Judge is only to set aside the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate directing the recalling of P.W.2 in order to produce certain documents, but allowing the Crl.M.P. in its entirety and thereby terminating the whole proceedings by the lower appellate court is clearly not within the legal province and that therefore, on the said ground also the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is vitiated. 6. 6. In the light of the above contentions addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, the only question that arise for consideration before me is that the judgment rendered by the lower appellate court is correct in maintaining the revisions filed against the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate in an interlocutory application and that even so the impugned judgments rendering the criminal proceedings was not proper and illegal and if so liable to be set aside? 7. In the light of the above contentions, I may straightaway observe that while this Court in exercising its revisional jurisdiction has given a concurrence that any impropriety or illegality is committed by any court subordinate to the High Court in launching criminal processings, which would result in the total failure of justice, where the appellate court namely the High Court or the District Court namely the lower appellate court while exercising the revisionary jurisdiction can exercise its power and to set aside the same. That would mean the revisional court would be competent perfectly within the province of the procedural law to interfere with the said order and provide legal redress from such injustice being contemplated. While observing so, it has become necessary for me to point out that the respondents in both the revision cases had filed applications before the learned trial Magistrate at the initial point itself and filed application for the production of the written authorisation for the complainant to launch criminal prosecution as warranted by Sec.347 of District Municipalities Act which is one mandatory in nature. Sec.347 of the District Municipalities Act read as follows: “No court shall take cognisance of any offence against the provisions of this act or of any rule, or bye-law made under it unless a complaint is made by the police or the Executive Authority or by a person expressly authorised in this behalf by the council or the Executive Authority within three months of the commission of the offence.” A cursory reading of this section clinches the fact that three categories of persons are competent to launch criminal prosecution against anybody for violation of the rule under the District Municipalities Act within three months of the commission of the offence; they are: (1) The Police, (2) The Executive Authority, and (3) such person who was expressly authorised on behalf by the council or the Executive Authority. In the instant case, the police and the Executive Authority have no place. The complaint was undoubtedly launched by P.W.1 namely the Town Planning Officer. It cannot be said or argued that the Town Planning Officer examined as P.W.1 is the Executive Authority so as to launch the criminal proceeding. But it has to be noticed that the Town Planning Officer has launched criminal proceeding, when for the said purpose he must come within the three categories above referred to. It would mean further that he should be authorised specifically by the Council to the Salem Municipality or by its Commissioner as contemplated specifically by the said section. But, significantly this authorisation is conspicuously absent. The mandatory procedure, in other words the sine quo non, required for launching criminal prosecution is manifestly absent in this case. Further P.W.1 the complainant has failed to produce the same before the trial court. In fact, P. W.2 the building inspector of Salem Municipality has categorically admitted in his evidence that the Commissioner of Salem Municipality namely the Executive Authority had not given any authorisation to the complainant namely the Town Planning Officer examined as P.W.1 to launch criminal proceeding against the respondents in both the revisions and after their evidence being closed the trial was adjourned for the defence. Even so, a petition was filed, it appears from the record that P.W.2 was sought to be recalled for production of certain important documents. It is not known from the petition as stated what are that documents which assumes the so called importance as per the Town Planning Officer. It is rather surpris-ing to note the observation of the learned trial Magistrate that he had allowed the petition itself with a view to provide an opportunity. But such an opportunity has to be provided either before or after the prosecution witnesses were examined. But, however, in the context of the specific and categorical admission of P.W.2, the production of some ‘important document’ does not come into picture at all. Therefore, in my firm view, the learned trial Magistrate has committed a serious error in allowing the petition to recall P.W.2 without assigning any good reason or for no reasons provided in the same. Therefore, that order if any for its improprietory or illegality has to be interfered with. 8. Therefore, in my firm view, the learned trial Magistrate has committed a serious error in allowing the petition to recall P.W.2 without assigning any good reason or for no reasons provided in the same. Therefore, that order if any for its improprietory or illegality has to be interfered with. 8. It is the common case of the respective parties that no written authorisation was given by the Executive Authority viz., the Commissioner of Salem Municipality to the complainant, the revision petitioner herein to launch criminal proceedings against the respondent as contemplated under Sec.347 of the District Municipalities Act. But, however, the plea taken on behalf of the revision petitioner under the pretext of Sec.18-A of the Act pertaining to the delegation of powers by the executive authority to the Town Planning Officer has been elaborately discussed and considered by the lower appellate court and consequently it was the finding given by the learned Sessions Judge that the contentions based on Sec.l8-A of the District Municipalities Act cannot be countenanced for any purpose in these revisions. As no other points were argued contravening the said finding in this revision, there exists no need for me to get into the said matter. One another legal lapse pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge was the mandatory provision of Sec.205 clause III of the District Municipalities Act has not been complied with by the prosecution to launch any criminal proceedings. It appears, a show cause notice as provided under Sec.205 has been given to the accused in both the cases under Ex.P-1 and for which a reply was given by the respondent under Ex.D-1 giving explanation for the non-compliance of Sec.199 of the District Municipalities Act. But, it seems however, that on the receipt of the said reply or explanation either the Town Planning Officer namely the revision petitioners herein or the Municipal Authorities concerned has not acted by complying this on the basis of the said reply as provided by the above section of law. However, it was neither accepted their explanation nor rejected it. But, however, consequently, rather curiously,indulged in launching a criminal prosecution under the pretext of Sec.199 which is punishable inder Sec.317 of the District Municipalities Act. In this regard I have to hold at this juncture that the respondents have deliberately failed to act as correctly provided by the provisions of the District Municipalities Act. But, however, consequently, rather curiously,indulged in launching a criminal prosecution under the pretext of Sec.199 which is punishable inder Sec.317 of the District Municipalities Act. In this regard I have to hold at this juncture that the respondents have deliberately failed to act as correctly provided by the provisions of the District Municipalities Act. He has no sanction or authority to launch criminal prosecution against the respondents herein nor any legal sanctity in the context that he has not used his mind even though they have issued a notice under Sec.205 of the Act. The learned Sessions judge had elaborately discussed every one of the aspects referred to having gone through the case records, keeping in juxta position with the provisions of law available in the District Municipalities Act, I am rather, but feel satisfied to hold that the revision petitioner has noauthority at all to launch the criminal prosecution against the respondents herein and that the launching of the proceeding involved in the instant case are without any legal sanction which if allowed, would in my firm view result in total failure of justice and in such circumstances, while exercising my revisional jurisdiction, I am fully satisfied to hold that the findings of the lower Appellate Authority is perfectly valid in law and within his legal competency. No other points were argued before me. Hence both these revisions lapse any merits. 9. In the result, both these revision petitions fail and accordingly they are dismissed.