JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th May, 1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court: Essential Commodities Act), Jaipur (for short 'the Appellate Court') whereby the judgment and order dated 12th of June, 1987 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, was set aside accepting the appeal of the respondent-appellant (Bane Singh). 2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 16th of December, 1985, Shiv Nath Singh, Enforcement Officer, Jaipur Development Authority (for short 'the JDA') while inspecting Ajmer road site, found the accused-respondent (Bane Singh) raising illegal construction of shops and a basement of 30x30 feet size near New Octroi Post, Ajmer Road, Jaipur without obtaining any permission from the appellant authority. The accused-respondent (Bane Singh) was served with a notice under Section 32 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act of 1982') for removal of unauthorized construction, who failed to comply with and therefore, a complaint was filed by the Deputy Director, Enforcement, JDA, Jaipur to punish the accused-respondent under sub-section (7) of Section 32 of the Act of 1982. 3. In response to the notice aforesaid, the accused-respondent (Bane Singh) appeared before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and denied the accusation and therefore, was put to trial. The prosecution in support of the charges produced three witnesses and the accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The accused-respondent produced four witnesses in his defence. The Trial Magistrate after taking into consideration the facts and material brought on record held guilty to the accused-respondent (Bane Singh), and convicted him for offence under Section 31(1) and Section 32(7) of the Act of 1982 and imposed a fine of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- respectively and in default of payment of fine, to suffer three months simple imprisonment. 4. The accused-respondent aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 12th of June, 1987 as aforesaid, preferred an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court: Essential Commodities Act), Jaipur. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the accused-respondent setting aside the judgment and order dated 12th of June, 1987 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and acquitted the accused-respondent. 5. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the accused-respondent setting aside the judgment and order dated 12th of June, 1987 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and acquitted the accused-respondent. 5. The appellant - State dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Appellate Court dated 10th of May, 1988 preferred a petition for grant of special leave to appeal, which was granted by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 10th of May, 1988 being contrary to the mandate of Section 75 of the Act of 1982. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Deputy Director, Enforcement, JDA (Shri V.P. Singh) was fully authorised to institute a complaint against the person, who violated the provisions of Sections 31 & 32 of the Act of 1982 and further, general authorisation for instituting the complaint is as good as special authorization. Thus, since there was a general authorisation in favour of the Deputy Director, Enforcement, JDA, which was sufficient compliance of the mandate of Section 75 of the Act of 1982, assailing the judgment and order dated 10th of May, 1988 of the Appellate Court, it was submitted that a copy of the order bearing No. JDA/ Estab./6/82/D/393 dated 7th of November, 1983 was shown to the Appellate Court, which authorised the Deputy Commissioner, Enforcement, JDA to institute the complaint. The Court of learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint on its satisfaction with reference to competency of the complainant and the accused-respondent did not plead any objection immediately after service of the summon and therefore, the learned Appellate Court was totally in error in entertaining the technical objections of the accused-respondent since neither accused was prejudiced nor any failure of justice resulted and there was no cross-examination on the issue of competency of the authority filing the complaint, while supporting view taken by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate vide judgment dated 12th of June, 1987. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the accused-respondent and with their assistance also perused the material available on record. 8. At this juncture, it would be relevant to consider the provisions of Section 75 of the Act of 1982, which reads thus:- "75. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the accused-respondent and with their assistance also perused the material available on record. 8. At this juncture, it would be relevant to consider the provisions of Section 75 of the Act of 1982, which reads thus:- "75. Cognizance of offences - (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act and or any rule or regulation or order made thereunder except upon a complaint in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by the authority or by a person expressly authorised in this behalf by the authority. Provided that any person, whose right to enjoyment of his own property is adversely affected by any unauthorized development as indicated in sub-section (i) of Section 31 may also file a complaint in the like manner against such person or persons who may have undertaken the said unauthorized development. Provided further that the authority shall also be given due notice of such proceedings and if the authority removes the cause for action within a reasonable period the proceeding in the Court shall abate without prejudice to any other action or proceedings that the authority has initiated or may initiate thereafter. (2) No Court interfere to that of a Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try any offence punishable under this Act." 9. A bare perusal of Section 75 of the Act of 1982 provides the manner in which the cognizance of offence under the Act of 1982 is to be taken. The learned Appellate Court after a detailed discussion and examination of the Scheme of the Act of 1982, including one provided under Section 15 and taking into consideration the view taken by this Court as reported in 1980 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 143, 1984 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 444, 1984 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 465 concluded that Shri V.P. Singh, Deputy Director, Enforcement, JDA, who filed the complaint was not the authority or a person expressly authorised in this behalf. 10. The counsel for the appellant on being called upon to produce a copy of the order bearing No. JDA/Estab./6/82/D/393 dated 7th of November, 1983, was unable to produce the same, which allegedly was shown to the Appellate Court. 10. The counsel for the appellant on being called upon to produce a copy of the order bearing No. JDA/Estab./6/82/D/393 dated 7th of November, 1983, was unable to produce the same, which allegedly was shown to the Appellate Court. Further, I find no merit in the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor that the respondent is estopped from challenging the illegality of the prosecution simply on the ground that he did not raise the objection and no cross-examination was made on the issue of prosecution being bad in law. There is nothing like estoppel in law, which may preclude the respondent from questioning the illegality or invalidity of the prosecution. 11. In the result, the appeal preferred by the appellant, fails and the same is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******