RANGA RAMACHANDRA KULKARNI Vs. HAJUMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is substance in this appeal and it must succeed. The facts, briefly stated are: the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Athni, launched a prosecution against Hajuma wife of Babu Zhaudwale, for an offence u/s.263 of the Mysore Municipalities Act 1964. An objection was raised by the accused before the court below with regard to the maintainability of the prosecution that, in as much as the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner had not been obtained as contemplated u/s.330 of the Mysore Municipalities Act, the prosecution was unmaintainable. The court below was of the view that the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner was obligatory u!s. 330 of the Mysore Municipalities Act and, since the complaint was not accompanied by such an approval, it was unmaintainable.

(2.) It was argued on behalf of the appellant Town Municipal Council that the learned Magistrate has fallen into error in holding that the previous approval of the Deputy Commr. was essential or obligatory u/s.330 of the Municipalities Act. It was contended that according to the proviso to Sec.330(e) of the Mysore Municipalities Act, previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner is obligatory only for the offences mentioned in that proviso, viz. Ss.78 and 241 of the Act, while in the instant case the accused was prosecuted for the offence u/s.187 read with Sec.263 of the Act. It was argued that no such approval has been prescribed by the said proviso for an offence u/s.187 r/w/s.263 of the Mysore Municipalities Act. We are of the opinion that there is substance in the contention. In Sec.330(e) reference is made to more than one section of the Act, including SSec.276 of the Act. Then comes the proviso which reads: "Provided that the power conferred by Section 276 to direct a prosecution or to order proceedings to be taken for the punishment of any person offending against the provisions of the following sections shall not be exercised by the Chief Officer, except with the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner:-S.78 and S.241".

(3.) It is thus clear that the previous approval according to the proviso is required only for the offences which come u/s.78 and 241 of the Act. The restriction imposed by the proviso is not applicable to the remaining sections reference to which is made in Sec.330(e), which includes Sec.187 of the Act also. Evidently, the learned Magistrate was not right in his view that previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner was necessary in the case in which the prosecution is for the offence punishable u/s. 187 r/w/s.263 of the Mysore Municipalities Act.