JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PRAHLAD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS S. B. Leave Application under Section 378 Cr. P. C. of 1973 against the judgment and order of the learned Special Court Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, J. D. A. Act cases, Jaipur, dated 29. 8. 85 in Cr. Case No. 323/84, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent from the charge for offence under Section 32 (7) and section 33 (2) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act (herein after called the Act ). The accused respondent was charged for offence under Section 31 (1), 32 (7) and 33 (2) of the Act for raising unauthorised construction/development and using the land otherwise than in conformity with the plan inspite of the notice given to him by the complainant J. D. A. and not stopping the unauthorised construction. The trial court found him guilty and convicted the accused respondent for offence under section 31 (1) of the Act for raising/making illegal unauthorised construction and sentenced him to fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, but acquitted him u/s 32 (7) and sec. 33 (2) of the Act.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant J. D. A. & learned counsel for the non-petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gupta has stressed that the learned trial court has erred in holding that notice Ex. P. 6 regarding removal of illegal construction was not duly served upon the accused respondent. The contention of the learned counsel is that the service of the notice effected on Ghanshyam Gupta younger brother of the accused respondent, was sufficient as according to the provisions of Section 86 (c) (si) of the Act if such person can not be found, the notice can be affixed on some conspicuous part of his last known place of residence or business, or is given or tendered to some adult member of his family or is affixed on some conspicuous part of the land or building to which it relates.

(3.) THE next point urged by the learned counsel for the applicant is that offence under Section 33 (2) of the Act is a continuing offence, therefore, the provisions of Limitation Act as provided under Section 468 Cr. P. C. do not apply at all to the present case. It has been provided in Section 33 (2) of the Act that any person who continues to carry out the development of land, other person, after such notice has been served, shall on conviction, be punished with fine which may extent to Rs. 5,000/- and when the non-compliance is continuing one, with a further fine which may extent to Rs. 100/- for every day after the date of the service of notice during which the non-compliances continued or continues. This section therefore, clearly lays down that even after service of notice, if the work, is continued, the offender shall be liable to punishment provided in section 33 (2) as stated above.