BALCHAND Vs. MANDSAUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted for the contravention of a provision regarding sanitation in the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2/-. The conviction was by a Magistrate who being the Chief Executive Officer, had been appointed under Section 187 of the said Act.

(2.) The applicant has proceeded against this conviction and insignificant sentence with a grossly disproportionate zeal. It is usual in such cases of nonappealable sentences to insist upon the applicant moving the Sessions Judge for a reference. This applicant did so but allowed the application before the Sessions Judge to be dismissed for default. This alone might have justified the dismissal of this application; any way it has been admitted and is better heard on merits.

(3.) A good deal of the argument centres round whether the facts justified the conviction. The applicant has a latrine which he constructed in 1937, and from which filth was seeping or leaking on the road. The finding of fact is that the latrine itself is so constructed that it cannot contain the refuse and as such leakage or seepage is inevitable. In his own interest, he should put an end to this nuisance; but he has been preferring to spend in law courts several times the amount of money and trouble that could get him a latrine satisfactory to the sanitary requirements of the municipal law. Obviously, this court cannot go into the finding of fact.