ADMINISTRATOR HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY Vs. KALIDASI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order of acquittal made by the Municipal Magistrate of Howrah on 31-3-1955. The opposite party was prosecuted for unauthorised construction and completion of masonry structure on the 1st floor of her premises ignoring a notice served upon her under Section 365 (1), Calcutta Municipal Act as extended to Howrah. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution but no one was called on behalf of the defence. The learned Magistrate thereafter proceeded to judgment by which he acquitted the opposite party, not on the merits, but upon a view of the law which he took to which I am about to refer.

(2.) The defence attempted to avail of two objections to the validity of the proceedings. In the first place, it was held that the present prosecution was barred by time; and it having been instituted beyond the period limited by the law for prosecution of an offence under the Municipal Act, the proceedings were not maintainable. Upon this point, it is to be observed, the learned Magistrate recorded no finding although the point was noticed aa having been raised by the petitioner.

(3.) The other ground which appears to have been argued at some length before the learned Magistrate seems to be that in view of the provisions contained in the Calcutta Municipal Act 1923 as extended to Howrah, the present proceedings were not maintainable. In law, the argument advanced before the learned Magistrate and accept, ed by him was that the area in which the offending premises stood was added to the Municipality of Howrah by a notification issued under Sections 8 (c) and 10, Bengal Municipal Act. It was said on behalf of the opposite party that the prosecution not having been able to produce any notification to show that the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act as extended to Howrah have also been extended to the added area on which the premises in question stood, the present prosecution could not be gone on with. This view appears to have prevailed with the Magistrate who thought that there was considerable substance in the contention raised. It was held that there was necessity of a notification in the absence of which powers could not be exercised under Section 365 of the Act as extended to Howrah. Upon these findings the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the proceedings had been misconceived and in that view he acquitted the opposite party.