JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P. C. against the impugned judgment dated 3. 6. 1994 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputali, District Jaipur in criminal case NO. 539/1989 by which he had acquitted the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 namely; Nathu Lal, Hukum Chand and Prabhati Lal for offence under Section 6 read with Section 11 of the Rajasthan Religious Building & Places Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1954 ).

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that one Rajendra Soni filed a complaint to the Collector, Jaipur on 15. 03. 1982 stating therein that in the night of 8. 3. 1982 the respondents by encroaching a public land on the main way near "kharia Kua" opposite the house of the complainant had started construction of Hanuman Temple by exploiting religious feelings of the public as a result of which the entire way has been stopped. It is also alleged in the said complaint that this construction has been raised without any permission of the Collector or any other authority including the Municipal board or the SDO of the area. An application was filed by deceased Niranjan Lal (who was also an accused before the Trial court and subsequently died) for construction of temple/tibara which was dismissed in the year 1981 and no appeal was preferred against that order. Later on the construction was raised despite dismissal of the aforesaid application. THE Collector, Jaipur forwarded the aforementioned complaint to the SHO Police Station, Kotwali for inquiry and report. THE Police after inquiring into the matter obtained a sanction for prosecution from the Collector as envisaged in the Act, 1954 and filed a complaint against the accused respondents and other two persons namely; Niranjan Lal and Babu Lal (who subsequently died) during trial for offences under Sections 6 read with Section 11 of the Act of 1954. THE accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court has erred in not directing the removal of unauthorised construction which had been done in contravention of the Act, 1954. In this connection, it is pertinent here to mention that under the Act, 1954 the judicial Courts while trying the cases for such offence are not empowered to direct the removal of unauthorised construction. Section 11-A which has been inserted by the State of Rajasthan (XII) Act of 1988 empowers the SDO who at his own motion or complaint or on receiving information that any work of construction has been going on in contravention of the provisions of this Act shall proceed to enquire into the truth of the fact that the construction work has been so done or going on, the shall make a report to this effect to the Collector, who after applying the provisions of Sub-clause (ii) to (iv) shall direct the removal of the so constructed work. Therefore, in view of this matter, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no substance.