RAM KRIPAL Vs. CHAIRMAN, JAMALPORE MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted by a Magistrate with Third Class powers under Section 192, Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, of having by the construction of a new door into a house and the raising of a platform made material alterations in a building of which he had given no notice to the Municipality. It was found after a local inquiry and established also by the evidence that what was described as a platform was not in fact a platform and the erection of it did not require any notice to the Municipality. The petitioner was convicted only in respect of the opening of the new door.

(2.) The appellate Court set aside the conviction and sentence but remanded the case for re-trial by the Subdivisional Magistrate or by such other experienced Magistrate as he might select. The grounds upon which the case was remanded were that a proper judgment had not been written by the Magistrate; that he was not sufficiently experienced to appreciate and deal with the point of law involved in the case, and that it had not been determined whether the opening of the door did in fact constitute a material alteration.

(3.) The expression "an alteration in a building" is defined in Sub-section (3), Section 186 of the Act. It is admitted that the only clause of this Sub-section which could possibly be applicable is Clause (a) which refers to an alteration which affects or is likely to affect prejudicially the stability or safety of a building or the condition of the building in respect of drainage, ventilation, sanitation or hygiene. There was no allegation in the trial Court that the alteration in question had any of the effects mentioned in this clause. I do not think therefore that any useful purpose would be served by a re-trial of the case.