COMMISSIONER, SATHYAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. S.N. NACHIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Commissioner, Sathyamangalam Municipality against the order dated 8th April, 1971 of the Special First Class Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam, acquitting S.N. Nachimuthu, accused Respondent herein, of the offence contravening Sec. 197 and 199 read with Sec. 216(1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act (Act V of 1920).

(2.) A brief outline of facts is necessary for the proper apprehension of the case. On 15th June, 1970 the Respondent applied for permission to the Appellant for re -construction of the building in Door No. 11/31, at Vaniar Street at Sathyamangalam. The application was rejected by the Appellant on 28th July, 1970 in Ex.B -1. Later, on 26th August, 1970 the Respondent filed another application in Ex.P -1. On 7th September, 1970, the Appellant passed an order directing the Respondent not to proceed with the reconstruction work. On 18th September, 1970 the Appellant rejected the application of the Respondent in Ex.P -3. On 28th October, 1970, P.W.1, the Building -Inspector, inspected the new construction which amounted to alteration of the old building. Again, the Appellant passed an order in Ex.P -4 rejecting the request of Respondent on 28th October, 1970. He confirmed the order passed in Ex.P -4 in a later order in Ex. P -5 dated 11th November, 1970. Ex.P -5 was served on the Respondent on 13th November, 1970. Again the Respondent filed another fresh plan and application on 16th November, 1970 in Ex P -6. This application was also rejected on 19th December, 1970 in Ex. P.7.

(3.) On these facts, the learned trial Magistrate relied on the rationale in Ramaswamy v/s. Municipality of Coimbatore : 81 L.W. 108 : 1968 1 M.L.J. 199 and Public Prosecutor v/s. Krishna Rao : 1957 2 M.LJ. 637 : 70 L.W. 1019 and found that the prosecution filed Exs. P -1 to P -7 for the purpose of covering the delay caused in the approval of the plan and grant of permission under Sec. 200 and 201 of the Act. The learned trial Magistrate noticed that the work was in progress in the light of the terms of Ex.P -1. On 28th July, 1970, the order Ex.D -1, has been issued, but the trial Magistrate noticed that there has been a lapse of more than thirty days. The learned trial Magistrate relied on Sec. 321(11) of the Act and acted on a presumption that the application shall be deemed to have been allowed.