STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. D R CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment. In each of these three cases a complaint was filed on 17th February, 1975, that the motor vehicle belonging to respondent-accused was found causing obstruction to traffic and thereby an offence punishable under Section 102 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Act No. XXII of 1951) : was committed. In each of these three cases the learned Honorary Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, recorded the plea of not guilty of the concerned accused and has recorded the statement of the complainant that there was no Parking Board, The learned Magistrate has written a single line order that the offence was not proved and discharged the accused.

(2.) THE State has come in appeal saying that the procedure followed was erroneous. At any rate, the prosecution ought to have been given a chance to substantiate their case by the fuller examination of the complainant. It ought not to be forgotten that these are petty offences tried by the Honorary Metropolitan Magistrate. If the ingredients of the offence are not properly mentioned in the complaint itself, I think the Court will not be justified in upsetting the order passed by the Honorary Metropolitan Magistrate and no order even for remand of the case need be passed.

(3.) IN the three cases in hand the allegations were in respect of the offence under Section 102 of the Bombay Police Act, They were in relation to the vehicles which were parked. In this context, if we refer to Section 102, we find that the offence of causing any obstruction In a street could have been substantiated if the vehicles were kept halted for an unreasonable length of time or contrary to any regulations made and published by a competent authority. The entire recitals in the complaint are as follows: