(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment in C. C, 3246 of 48-49 on the file of the Second City Magistrate, Bangalore, acquitting the accused of an offence under Section 25, City of Bangalore Improvement Act of 1945, the operation of which is extended from 18-3-49 to the area in which the respondent's land is situated.
(2.) The Municipal Sub-overseer who has been examined in the case as the first witness for the prosecution has stated that on 23-3-49 the accused was gotting sites marked out by fixing atones. Twenty persons were working on the sites according to this witness. P. W. 2 is the Assistant Engineer, Trust Board. states that when ho went to the place with P. W. 1 the demarcation atones were being fixed. Some sites had been demarcated and some were being demarcated when he went there on 23-3-1949, He saw the accused there but did cot take a statement from him. The case of the accused is that he did mark the sites prior to 18-8-49 on which data the Act was made applicable to the area in which his land was situated and that even otherwise mere fixing of stones for demarcating sites and roads subsequent to the application of the Act does not amount to forming or attempting to form an extension or lay-out) as contemplated by Section 25 (2), City of Bangalore Improvement Act.
(3.) As regards the first point, there is hardly any doubt that the accused had got a plan prepared and sold some sites after demarcating them before 1-3-1949. The plan was got registered along with a sale deed executed before 18-3-1949. At the same time there is sufficient evidence to indicate that demarcation of other sites by fixing atones wag being done after 18-3-1949. In fact, the evidence, of P. Ws. 1 and 2 establishes that the accused was getting this done on 23-3-49. It has, therefore, been proved beyond doubt that demarcation of sites was being got done by accused even after 18-3-1949.