THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ANDHRA Vs. UPPARA ERANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by the Public Prosecutor, Andhra, against the order of acquittal passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Adoni in Crl. A. No. 13 of 1954. The Stationary Sub Magistrate Adoni convicted the accused under Sections 199 and 317 (a) and (e) of the District Municipalities Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Though the acquittal by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was based on several grounds, I confirm the judgment on only one of those grounds, namely, by applying the provisions of Section 202 of the District Municipalities Act and Section 96 of the Village Panchayats Act. In the view taken by me, it is unnecessary to canvass the several legal positions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor. The appeal appears to have been filed by the Public Prosecutor mainly on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate misconstrued the scope and effect of the provisions of Sections 216 and 317 of the District Municipalities Act; but, as already stated, it is unnecessary for me to deal with those questions for sustaining the acquittal.

(2.) The respondent (accused) herein purchased a house on 26-10-1950. He applied to the Executive Officer of Vemmiganur Panchayat Board for permission to re-construct the house. The Executive Authority did not send any reply to that application within 30 days. No orders were passed on his application granting or refusing permission. So under the provisions of Section 202 of the District Municipalities Act which were made applicable to the Panchayat Board, it must be held that the application for re-construction should be deemed to have been allowed and no prosecution under Section 317 is consequently maintainable. But, unfortunately, this contention was not raised, in specific terms, before the courts below, though a passing reference is made by the appellate court.

(3.) The main ground on which the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the acquittal was illegal and that the order of the Sub Magistrate is correct, is that, in view of the orders passed by the Panchayat Board on 26-10-1953 and 20-11-1953, marked as Exs. P-3 and P-4, the respondent ought not to have proceeded with re-construction. It appears that not having received a reply from the Panchayat Board to his application dated 18-9-1952, the respondent once again submitted an application marked as Ex. P-1 dated 26-10-1953. On the same day the Executive Officer sent a reply to the respondent in the following terms: