STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SUNIL PANDURANG JAGTAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State is questioning the correctness of the judgment and order passed by Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1995 arising out of R.C.C. No.419 of 1993. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE TRIAL ARE AS UNDER

(2.) Respondent Sunil undertook construction of building on Parola Road. Visit was made by Building Inspector of Municipality and he claims to have noticed unauthorized construction by making encroachment and reported it to Chief Officer. Therefore, notice was said to be issued under Sec. 189(8) of The Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 directing to restore vacant land and remove encroachment within 15 days. In spite of notice, respondent did not comply and after obtaining sanction, Building Inspector lodged complaint for commission of offence under Sec. 52 read with Sec. 43 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, 'MRTP Act'). After investigation, respondent was charge-sheeted and tried by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule vide R.C.C. No. 419 of 1993. Matter was contested. Evidence of prosecution and defence of accused was appreciated and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by its judgment and order dtd. 19/8/1995, convicted respondent for offence under Sec. 52 of MRTP Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

(3.) Such judgment and order of conviction was questioned by respondent by filing appeal before Sessions Court, Dhule bearing Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1995. After hearing both sides, learned Appellate Court vide judgment and order dtd. 20/9/2003 allowed the appeal of respondent and setting aside the conviction and sentence. Hence, instant appeal by State. SUBMISSIONS On behalf of Appellant ' State :