SUDARSHAN DEVIDASRAO BHORE Vs. JAGJEETSINGH CHIRAGIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the order of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded dated-27-08-1998 by which Revision against the order of discharge passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded was allowed and the matter was remitted for framing of charge.

(2.) Relevant facts in nutshell are: that the petitioner is owner of House property bearing Municipal No. 3-5-118 situated at Mahavir chowk, Nanded. The petitioner obtained permission for development of property as he desired to construct two storied house. Permission was granted by Municipal Council, Nanded and the construction commenced. During construction, complainant Jagjeetsingh Chiragiya/respondent No. 1, who is Sanitary Inspector and Supervisor of that area, visited the site on 07-08-1993. He took measurements in the presence of petitioner and found that there is an excess construction. He, therefore, prepared Panchanama (Exh. 13) and submitted a report (Exh. 14) to superiors. Subsequently, notice (Exh. 15) dated18-08-1993 came to be served on the petitioner. The Sanitary Inspector, in due course, again visited the property. He made enquiries with the petitioner and found that instead of complying with the notice, petitioner has completed the construction. He, therefore, submitted report dated 08-03-1995 (Exh. 16 ). As there was no compliance with the notice and the petitioner had not taken any steps for regularization, sanction for his prosecution for offence punishable under section 52 (1) read with sections 53 (1) and 54 (1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTP Act") was accorded by the Chief Officer. As a result, the complaint was filed with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, which was registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 736/1995.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner has raised two points: (1) It is permissible for the Magistrate to appreciate the evidence at the stage of framing of the charge, therefore, the order passed by the learned CJM is valid, legal and proper; (2) that the prosecution is premature as notice u/s. 53 of the MRTP Act, is not served on the petitioner.