(1.) This is a reference made by the Extra Additional Sessions Judge Surat recommending quashing of an order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate First Class (Municipality) by which the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under sec. 123 (7) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs. 10/in default to suffer S. I. for a week.
(2.) The facts of this case briefly are that the accused Bai Diwali Nagindas had applied to the local Municipality for permission to construct a flush latrine on 27/08/1958 in her property bearing No. 4/2773 in Ward No. 4 situated at Begumpura Vania Sheri in the city of Surat. She was granted permission by the Municipality to construct the same according to the plan submitted by her. The case of the Municipality against the accused is that she constructed a flush latrine not in the survey number in regard to which the permission was granted but in a different property bearing No. 4/2772 which was contrary to the permission granted to her by the Municipal Authorities and that consequently she was guilty of an offence under sec. 123(7) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 This subsection comes into operation where there is a construction in contravention of the permission given by the Municipality. Consequently a complaint was filed on behalf of the Municipality on 13/11/1953 after obtaining the permission of the Chief Officer of the Surat Borough Municipality in the Court mentioned above. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. Against that decision a revision application was presented to the learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge Surat who in his reference has expressed the view that the prosecution in this case was barred by limitation under sec. 200 of the said Act.
(3.) The only point that arises in this reference is whether the prosecution is barred by limitation under sec. 200 of the said Act. Sec. 200 provides as follows :