SUDESH PODDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under section 401 read with section 482 of the Cr. PC is aimed at quashing the criminal proceeding being Misc. File No. 121/ 06 now pending before the learned Municipal -cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta and is also directed against the order dated 5.3.2007 passed by the said learned Magistrate rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for dropping the proceeding against him in view of the provisions of section 620 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter called the K.M.C. Act).

(2.) Mr. Debabrata Roy, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in this matter the Misc. File No. 121/06 now pending before the learned Magistrate arose out of Hare Street P.S. Case No. 159 dated 15.3.04 under section 401A of the K.M.C. Act. In view of the provisions of section 620 of the said Act proceeding of trial of any offence punishable by or under the said Act can not be continued with except on the complaint of or upon information received from the Municipal Commissioner or any person authorised by him by general or special order in this behalf. In this matter the police submitted the final report which is submission of complaint by the police and, in view of the provisions of section 620 of the K.M. C. Act the learned Magistrate cannct proceed with the trial on the basis of complaint submitted by police.

(3.) Mr. Roy further contended that the alleged complaint appearing at page 22 of the revisional application is in fact not a complaint by Municipal Commissioner. Inside of it, the designation of the Chief Minister was used to give weight to the complaint. In fact, :it was not a complaint by the Municipal Commissioner. The complaint or the final report, in order to prose cute a person under any section of the K.M.C. Act must be submitted by the Municipal Commissioner and police has no jurisdiction to submit final repori. Section 401A of the K.M.C. Act prescribes that if any person by himself c r on behalf of any other person constructs or attempts to construct any new building or additional floor or floors in contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder as endangers or is likely to endanger humrn life or any property of the Corporation whereupon the water supply, drainage or sewerage or road traffic is disrupted or is likely to be disrupted shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description which may extend to five years and also with fine. In view of Explanation the word 'person' includes the owner, occupier, lessee, mortgagee, promoter, finances or agent or servant of owaer, occupier, lessee, mortgagee etc. The offence under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable and non-bailable. According to Mr. Roy in the alleged complaint there was no element of requirements of Section 401A of the K.M.C. Act. Mr. Roy submitted that in this matter the provisions like Electricity Act, 2003 are t pplicable and under section 151 of the Electricity Act no Court can take cogniz ance over any offence under Electricity Act on the basis of any report submitted by police. The same principle is applicable in the K.M.C. Act and no Couut can proceed with the trial on the basis of final report submitted by the police. Continuation of the criminal proceeding is accordingly illegal and it should be quashed. In support of his contention Mr. Roy cited the decision in 2006(1) C Cr LR (Cal) 334 (Ranjit Kumar Bag vs. State of West Bengal).