JDA Vs. OM PRAKASH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of identical question of law being involved for consideration of this Court, all these revision petitions are being dealt with and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience and ready reference. I deem it appropriate to refer to the facts stated in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.290/96, (JDA Vs. Om Prakash & Anr.) and which shall be treated as a main case.

(2.) The petitioner has come up before this Court against the impugned order dated 7.3.96 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur whereby, he dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner against the accused for the commission of offences under Sections 31, 32 & 33 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(3.) The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 4.4.1984, Maksood Ahmed, Enforcement Inspector, Jaipur Development Authority was on routine patrolling and he found that in Ganesh Colony, Kalwar Road, the accused non-petitioner was raising construction of 3 rooms, latrine, bathroom measuring 40' x 25' without obtaining permission from the Jaipur Development Authority. The Enforcement Inspector issued a notice under section 32 of the Act, 1982 to the accused non-petitioner asking him to stop the construction work and to remove all the illegal and unauthorized constructions but the accused non-petitioner did not comply with the notice and continued the construction work which was found on the site on the subsequent dates when the inspection of the site was made. The Enforcement Inspector had also prepared a site plan at the time of inspection. Thereafter, petitioner JDA filed a complaint/application to the trial Court against the accused non-petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 31, 32 and 33 of the Act. On the application/complaint of the complainant JDA, the trial Court took cognizance of the offence against the accused non-petitioner and issued summons to him on various dates but the service could not be effected on the accused. On 7.3.96, the case was fixed before the trial Court for service of summons but the trial Court dismissed the complaint and quashed the proceedings against the accused-non petitioner. Being aggrieved against the said impugned-order, the petitioner JDA has come up before this Court in the instant revision petitions.