MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER RAYADURG Vs. S MAHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal against acquittal is whether the prosecution of the respondent for offences under sections 184 and 185 read section 336 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, is barred by limitation.

(2.) The following facts which are not disputed become material. The respondent owns agricultural land in S. No. 219 of 1981 Riyadurg Municipality. He sold a site measuring 491/2 feet x 60 feet situated in the middle of that survey number on 4th February, 1981 under a registered document in favour of one Laksbmidevamma. The petitioner-municipality came to know about tbcse alienations on information Exhibit P-1 furnished to it by the Sub Registrar, Rayadurg. P. W. 1 .Revenue Inspector working in that Municipality visited the area and found that Lakshmidevamma erected a hut. The Municipality issued the notice Exhibit P-2 dated 8th May, 1981 to the respondent, informing him that be has contravened sections 184 and 185 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act and called upon him to submit an application for sanction of a lay out within 7 days. The respondent sent the belated reply under Exhibit A-3 dated 4th February, 1P82 expressing his willingness to form a lay out and the roads and that as nobody was readily available for preparing the necessary blue prints, he may be granted 40 days time. As no such lay out was applied for the 1st respondent the charge-sheet dated 20th September, 1981, was filed into Court on 22nd September, 1981. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent being of the view that it is barred by limitation under section 366 of the Act. In support of that conclusion he relied on the decision in Madurai Municipality v. Abdul Razak Saheb, (1962) 1 M. L. J. 47, which considered an analogous provision in section 347 of the Madras District Municipalities Act.

(3.) In support of the appeal, Mr. Venkat Reddi the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the said decision on facts is distinguishable and that to cases of this type, the proviso to section 336 is applicable and that even otherwise, this is a fit ease where the Magistrate ought, in exercise of the powers under section 366 of the Municipalities Act, to have taken cognizance of the offence which is brought to his notice and should have convicted the respondent. Mr. Bali Reddy learned Counsel for the respondent supported the acquittal and placed reliance on Palaniappan v. Commissioner of Salem Municipality, (1966) M. L. J (Crl.) 595 ; Katta Krishna- murthy case, (1977) 2 An. W. R. 167 : (1977) 1 A. P. L J. 120 : (1977; M. L. J. (Crl.) 372; Tripurasundari v. Vijayawada Municipality, (1982) 1 A. P. L. J. 445 and SuryaRao v. State of Andh'a Pradesh, Crl R.C.No. 278 of 1979 dated 9th October, 1980.