EMPEROR Vs. BECHARDAS NAROTAMDAS MUNSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are five revisional applications against the orders of the Sessions Judge of Broach who has confirmed the convictions of the applicants by the First Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Broach, for certain offences under the Bombay City Municipalities Act, 1925, but has varied the sentences originally imposed. The applications have been heard together.

(2.) In Revision Application No. 460 of 1929, the facts found were that the applicant had in 1927 constructed a house without previously obtaining the permission of the Broach Municipality in that behalf. The Broach Municipality prosecuted the applicant for the offence and the applicant was convicted and fined Rs. 100 on October 10, 1927. On April 30, 1929, the Municipality filed the present complaint alleging that the house constructed by the applicant and allowed to remain undemolished by her was a continuing contravention of the provisions of Section 123(7) of the Bombay City Municipalities Act, The First Class Sub- Divisional Magistrate who tried the case convicted the applicant of an offence under Section 123 (7) and sentenced her to pay a fine at the rate of eight annas per day from October 21, 1927, to April 30, 1929. The appeal Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the fine to four annas per day for a period of six months only.

(3.) The two main grounds taken up in revision are (1) that the lower Courts have erred in their interpretation of Section 123(7) and (2) that the lower Courts have erred in holding that the cause of action for the complaint had arisen from day to day. Section 123(7) of the Bombay City Municipalities Act, 1925, inter alia, provides as follows :- Whoever begins any construction...in any...respect contrary to the provisions of this Act or of any bye-law in force thereunder, shall be punished...and in the case of a continuing contravention of any of the aforesaid provisions, he shall be liable to an additional fine which may extend to ten rupees for each day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention ; and the Chief Officer may- (a) direct that the construction...be stopped, and (b) upon a conviction being obtained under Sub-clause 7 by written notice, require such construction,...to be altered or demolished in accordance with the provisions of such notice."