SMT. CHAMPA KUER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by one Smt. Champa Kuer who has been convicted under Section 186 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, and Section 79 of the Town Improvement Act, 1919, and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 300/ -, and in default to 1 month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) IT appears that the applicant has got a house No. K -28/47 in Mohalla Govindji Naik, P.S. Kotwali, Banaras. She purchased this house on 22nd August, 1952 for Rs. 25,000/ -. At the time of the purchase it was a 4 -storied house abutting on the public road. She made an application on 24th September, 1952 for making certain repairs in this house and the necessary sanction was accorded to her oh 30th October, 1952. On 18th December, 1952 the Overseer of the Improvement Trust submitted a report that the applicant had made five new rooms on the fourth storey and one room was under construction towards the lane; that these constructions were unauthorised as no permission had been obtained in respect of them. On receipt of this report notice was issued to the applicant on 29th December, 1952 to stop the constructions and to show cause within seven days as to why she had made unauthorised constructions. After this notice she made further constructions of which a fresh report was submitted by the Overseer on 27th March, 1953. A fresh notice was given to her on 4th April, 1953 in which reference was also made to the notice which had already been given to her before and with which she had not complied. On 4th June, 1953 the Secretary of the Improvement Trust filed a complaint against the applicant.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate, however, found that from the prosecution evidence it was clearly proved that the, rooms in the fourth storey had been newly built after demolishing the old constructions; that a chabutra towards, the lane and some sunshades had been newly built for which no permission had been obtained. On these findings he convicted and sentenced the applicant. The applicant went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Banaras. He agreed with the findings of the trial court that the constructions were new and unauthorised and therefore upheld her conviction and sentence.