BIRENDRA CHANDRA BANIK Vs. ADHIR CHANDRA DE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was convicted by the first class Magistrate, Agartala under Section 297 of the Tripura Municipal Act and sentenced to pay a tine of Rs. 25/ - and in addition to pay a daily fine of Rs. 5/ - from 26 -6 -1958 until the removal of the latrine unauthorisedly built in his house without the permission of the Agartala Municipality. He filed a revision against the conviction and sentence before the Sessions Judge but it was dismissed. Hence he has come forward in revision to this Court.

(2.) THE facts leading to this application are as follows:

(3.) I heard arguments only on this one question as to whether the Petitioner was liable for prosecution for his failure to remove the latrine (which belonged to his wife) on receipt of a notice from the Municipality. The learned Magistrate treated this defence as a minor one. He found that the lease deed for the site was in die name of Kalyani Banik the wife of the Petitioner. But the learned Magistrate did not consider the effect of the lease being in the name of Kalyani Banik. He accepted that, in law, Kalyani Banik was the owner of the house and the latrine. But he took into consideration the fact that the Petitioner was living in the house along with his wife and that when the Sanitary Inspector visited the house for enquiry it was the Petitioner who had discussions with him and not kalyani Banik.