PRASANTA KUMAR DEY Vs. BHADRESWAR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ?This petition in revision is directed against the order dated 24.09.88 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagore in C.R. No. 504/88/T.R. No. 796/1988 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 501 read with Section 317/324 of the Bengal Municipal Act and thereafter issuing processes against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint filed by the Chairman Bhadreswar Municipality i.e., Opposite party No. 1.

(2.) The de facto complaint-opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional judicial Magistrate, Chandannagore on 24.09.88 alleging therein that the accused petitioner being the owner of the municipal holding No. 26 in Ward No. 2 at Grand Trunk Road within Bhadreswar Municipality had got a plan sanctioned by the said Municipality on 25.11.87 for construction of a commercial-cum-residential building. Sometime thereafter during the course of a routine inspection by an overseer of Bhadreswar Municipality it was detected that the accused petitioner had made certain construction in deviation to the sanction of plan. Since there was an unauthorised construction in violation of the sanctioned plan, a notice bearing No. 378 dated 10.01.88 was issued by the Municipality and the same was also served upon him directing him to show cause why the alleged unauthorised construction should not be demolished. Subsequently, two more such notices were issued on 09.03.88 and 06.04.88 by the Municipality and, ultimately, in the meeting of the Commissioners held on 14.05.88 a resolution was adopted for institution of a complaint under section 501 read with section 317/324 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 against the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, a complaint was filed by the complaint-opposite party No. 1 before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagore, who, on his turn, by an order dated 24.09.88 took congnizance of the alleged offence and directed to issue summons upon the accused petitioner.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the above mentioned order dated 24.09.88 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagore, the accused petitioner has come up with the instant petitioner-in-revision assailing the order, mainly, on the ground that the prosecution would not lie against him for non-comliance of the mandatory provisions of law as contemplated under sections 321 and 324 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. It has been contended that the Municipal Commissioner had failed to issue notices to the petitioner accused disclosing the details of the deviation allegedly made by him from the sanctioned building plan and also that the construction plan, as already sanctioned by the Commissioner, had not been cancelled before adopting a resolution to prosecute the accused petitioner. Beside this, it was further emphatically contended that the complaint, lodged by the O.P. No. 1, was barred by limitation as prescribed in section 533 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932.