ALOKA GHOSH Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule issued at the instance of a party against whom a proceeding by way of prosecution of non-compliance with the requisition of a notice under Rule 5(1) of Schedule XVII of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, is pending before the learned Municipal Magistrate raises an issue of limitation based on Section 582 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. This issue of limitation was heard as a preliminary issue before the learned Magistrate who has decided it against the accused, that is, the present petitioner.

(2.) The facts relevant for deciding that issue arc that a notice under Rule 5(1) of Schedule XVII of the Act was issued directing the petitioner to comply with the requisition within thirty days or file objection within seven days thereof. This notice was served on the petitioner on December 7, 1960. Thereafter, an objection within the time mentioned was preferred and it was placed before the Standing Committee in compliance with Sub-section (2) of Section 561 of the Act. That Standing Committee, called in this proceeding. Standing Building Committee, disposed of the matter by a resolution on August 10, 1961, and the objection was disallowed. This resolution was approved by the Chairman, presumably the Chairman of that Standing Committee, on September 18, 1961. Thereafter, on November 23, 1961, a complaint was filed before the Municipal Magistrate alleging an offence for non-compliance with the requisition of the notice under Rule 5 (1) of Schedule XVII. An objection was taken before the learned Magistrate that the complaint not having been made before a Magistrate within three months next after the date of the commission of the alleged offence, the accused person was not liable to punishment as provided under Section 582 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. This objection was heard as a preliminary point by the learned Municipal Magistrate and the learned Magistrate has held that because the complaint had been lodged in the court of the Magistrate within the period of ninety days from the date of the approval of the resolution of the Standing Committee by its Chairman, the prosecution was within time. This decision of the learned Magistrate has been assailed in the present Rule.

(3.) Mr. Purnendu Sekhar Basu, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the Rule, has referred to Section 582 and contended that the offence being for non-compliance of the requisition of the notice within thirty days of the service of the notice which expired on January 6, 1961, the offence was complete on that date and the last date within which the complaint could have been filed would be April 6, 1961. That not having been done, the prosecution was liable to be quashed.