NAGAR PANCHAYAT Vs. GALLU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the aforesaid 41 petitions, which have been filed by Nagar Panchayat, Handiaya, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur, Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for setting aside the orders, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barnala, whereby the complaints filed by the petitioner Under Section 195-A(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were dismissed being barred by time in view of Section 468 of the Code, and taking of cognizance of the offence after the expiry of limitation was refused and consequently, the respondents were discharged. The petitioner has also challenged the orders passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby the revisions filed by it against the aforesaid orders have been dismissed.

(2.) Admittedly, the respondents, the alleged accused, are owners of the properties, which are situated within the limits of Nagar Panchayat, Handiaya. Allegation against the respondents is that they had raised the construction on their properties without ob taining sanction from the petitioner, as required Under Section 189(1) of the Act and without giving any notice in writing as required Under Section 189(2) of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that when the information in this regard was received, notice Under Sections 195 and 195-M of the Act was served upon the respondents and they were asked to stop construction which they had carried without obtaining requisite sanction and further directed to demolish the same, failing which action would be taken against them. Subsequently, after more than five years, the complaints Under Section 195-A(2) of the Act were filed against the respondents in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barnala. The said complaints were not filed on any resolution passed by the Nagar Panchayat, but these were filed on the direction of the Deputy Director, Local Government, Patiala, exercising the powers Under Section 234 of the Act. The said complaints were dismissed by the trial Court, vide separate orders, while observing as under: In view of the provision of Section 469 Cr.P.C. the period of limitation for filing the complaint is six months, but the instant complaint filed by the complainant is after the expiry of limitation. The bar of limitation is absolutely bar and no court shall take cognizance of an offence after expiry of period of limitation as elaborated in Section 468 Cr.P.C. Now, question remains when the period of limitation will commence, the period of limitation in relations to an offence in question shall commence on the day of offence or on the first day, on which offence comes to the knowledge of a person aggrieved by the offence. Committee is an aggrieved person and offence came to the notice of the committee on the day of service of notice dated 11.4.1997 whereas, the complaint has been filed after about six years which is absolutely time barred and in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C., the Court cannot take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of limitation period, and accordingly, accused is, for the time being, is discharged in this complaint.

(3.) The revision petitions filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the trial Court have also been dismissed by the revisional court. Hence, these petitions have been filed by the petitioner.