Opinion
Argued November 8, 1973
December 10, 1973.
Appeals — Notice of appeal — Minor Judiciary Court Appeals Act, Act 1968, December 2, P. L. 1137 — Summary proceedings — District Attorney — Municipal regulations — County Solicitor — Municipal ordinances.
1. Provisions of the Minor Judiciary Court Appeals Act, Act 1968, December 2, P. L. 1137, require that in appeals from summary convictions in a case prosecuted privately or by a public official other than a District Attorney, the notice of appeal must be served upon such prosecuting party or his counsel. [173-4]
2. When a notice of appeal from the decision of a justice of the peace is served only upon the District Attorney who was not the prosecutor in the summary proceeding, which was related to the alleged violation of a municipal regulation and which was prosecuted by a Special County Solicitor, such appeal may be quashed. [174-5]
3. Prosecutions under municipal ordinances are considered and treated in the law as being essentially different from criminal prosecutions conducted by a district attorney. [174-5]
Argued November 8, 1973, before President Judge BOWMAN and Judges CRUMLISH, JR., KRAMER, WILKINSON, JR., MENCER, ROGERS and BLATT.
Appeal, No. 592 C.D. 1973, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ex rel. County of Allegheny v. Riesberg Iron and Metal Co., Inc., No. SA 604 of 1972.
Appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County from conviction of violation of municipal regulation by justice of the peace. Motion to quash appeal filed. Motion sustained. Ross, J. Defendant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Marvin Schreiber, for appellant.
Charles J. Goetz, for appellee.
Riesberg Iron and Metal Company, Inc., having been convicted before a Justice of the Peace of a violation of the Allegheny County Air Pollution Control regulations in a summary proceeding prosecuted by an inspector of the Bureau of Air Pollution Control of the Allegheny County Health Department represented by a Special County Solicitor, sought to appeal its conviction to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. After filing its appeal in that court, Riesberg served a copy of a notice of the appeal upon the District Attorney of Allegheny County; it failed to serve a copy of the notice of appeal upon the inspector or upon the Special County Solicitor. The Common Pleas Court on motion of the prosecutor quashed the appeal for failure of Riesberg to comply with Section 3(c) of the Minor Judiciary Court Appeals Act, Act of December 2, 1968, P. L. 1137, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 3003(c), which is in pertinent part: "A copy of the notice of appeal shall within ten days after filing be served upon the issuing authority and district attorney, or if the summary case was prosecuted privately or by another public official, upon his counsel or such person."
Riesberg centers its argument on the conjunction "or" which it contends affords appellants the alternative in all cases of serving the copy of the notice of appeal upon either the district attorney or upon counsel for a public official prosecutor or upon the public official himself. Its argument conveniently ignores the prepositional phrase "if the summary case was prosecuted . . . by another public official," which clearly, in our view, establishes a requirement that in the described kind of prosecution service shall be upon the prosecutor or his counsel. Not only is the language clear, practical and theoretical considerations compel the conclusion that the Legislature intended that notices of appeals from summary convictions in cases prosecuted by private persons and public officials should be served upon the prosecutor or his counsel. In larger communities many summary offenses are prosecuted, not by the district attorney, but by public officials concerned with enforcing municipal ordinances, represented by municipal solicitors. The serving of appeal notices upon the district attorney in such cases would be inefficient, if not ineffective. Further, prosecutions under municipal ordinances have been considered and treated in the law as being essentially different from criminal prosecutions conducted by the district attorney. See Philadelphia v. Home Agency, Inc. and Tower Real Estate, 4 Pa. Commw. 174, 285 A.2d 196 (1971); cf. Philadelphia v. Rohm Haas Co., Inc., 5 Pa. Commw. 73, 290 A.2d 428 (1972).
Affirmed.