PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ANDHRA Vs. DUGGIRALA AMARABABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment in B.C. No. 627 of 1955 on the file of the First Class Bench, Gudivada, dated 3rd February, 1956, acquitting the respondent per majority opinion.

(2.) The facts in brief are : A charge-sheet was filed under sections 199 and 317 of the District Municipalities Act, by the Commissioner, Gudivada Municipality, against the respondent for having commenced construction of a terraced building without obtaining licence under section 199 of the above Act. The respondent denied the offence. Two witnesses were examined. Three Magistrates constituting the Bench held the respondent not guilty and acquitted him on the grounds that notice was necessary before prosecuting the accused and that service of notice was not proper. The remaining two Magistrates took a different view and held the respondent guilty.

(3.) Sri Bhimaraju, the learned Public Prosecutor, contended first that the majority view was based on an erroneous assumption that notice was essential before prosecuting the accused (respondent) and that there was absolutely no provision in the Act to come to that conclusion. He next urged relying on section 331 of the Act that the notice was properly served and that the Magistrate committed an error in holding that the notice issued was not properly served. Sri Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, contended first that notice was necessary before taking any action against the respondent and that the notice issued and relied upon by the appellant was not served on the respondent, but is alleged to have been served on his father and that unless the appellant satisfies that the respondent was not available as provided under section 311 of the Act, service of the notice would not be deemed to be sufficient.