PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. SETTIGIRI NARAYANA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notices so far as they require, persons having no backyards to their houses to provide latrines in their non-existing backyards are clearly bad and we dismiss the appeals in which the respondents are owners of houses having no backyards, Crl. Appeal No. 176 of 1918 is also dismissed, the respondent being dead. It appears that the respondents in the 12 appeals Nos. 158, 164 to 167, 171, 174, 175,177, 181, 182 and 184 of 1918, do own backyards to their houses and could have complied with the notice issued under Section 207 of the District Municipalities Act (Act IV of 1884) to provide latrines in their several backyards.

(2.) We are unable to follow the reasoning of the majority of the Bench that the Municipal Council ought to have called upon the accused to provide moveable receptacles under Section 217 of the Act before proceeding to take action under Section 264 A. We are also unable to accept the arguments of the respondent s learned Vakil that the Municipal Council ought to have constructed the latrines themselves under Section 264(1), before prosecuting under Section 264A for failure to comply with the notice under Section 207. We are unable to find any such duty imposed by the Act on the Council as a necessary condition precedent to the institution of prosecutions under Section 264 A.

(3.) We therefore convict the respondent in these 12 appeals and impose a fine of one rupee on each of them dismissing the other appeals.