Criminal Application for Revision No. 262 of 1921. Case: Emperor Vs Matubhai M. Shah. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Application for Revision No. 262 of 1921 |
| Judges | Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and Shah, J. |
| Issue | Civil Procedure Code |
| Citation | 1922 (24) BomLR 105 |
| Judgement Date | November 16, 1921 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
-
The accused was charged with an offence under Section 96(5) of the Bombay District Municipal Act III of 1901. The complainant, Mr. Shinde, the Secretary of the Ghatkoper Kirol Municipality, alleged that the accused had commenced erecting a number of temporary huts on Survey No. 31 of Ghatkoper village situate within the limits of the Ghat koper Kirol Municipality without having obtained permission from the Municipality under Clause (1) of Section 96 and thus had committed an offence punishable under Section 96(5) of the Act.
-
The Magistrate came to the conclusion that no offence had been committed under Section 96(5), but on the facts he dealt with the case as if the Municipality had given notice to the accused under Section 97, and that the accused not having obeyed the requisitions of the Municipality had committed an offence under Section 155 of the Act, and fined him Rs. 50, or in default simple imprisonment for one month.
-
On the 18th January 1921, the accused wrote to the Municipality that he was a registered occupant of several pieces of land at Ghatkoper, and as such had applied for permission to the Salsette Development Officer to appropriate the said lands to building purposes, and for the purpose of giving facility to the workmen and servants employed by him for developing the land and making roads and plots and for erecting buildings, he had commenced erecting temporary sheds and shops, which would be removed after the buildings were erected.
-
Then he made certain inquiries with regard to the building rules and regulations which had been framed by the Municipality. But for the purposes of this case those inquiries are irrelevant.
-
In answer to this letter of the 18th, the Municipality, on the 25th of January, replied that the permission of the Municipality was equally necessary before proceeding with the work mentioned in the letter under reply. The work in question was, therefore, purely unauthorized and was proceeded with notwithstanding the repeated verbal as well as written warnings given to the accused's staff in charge of the work. Reference was then made to the Municipal rules and bye-laws, and the letter concludes: "Lastly I may take this occasion to add that if these unauthorized structures are not removed within four days from the receipt of this notice necessary action will have to be adopted against you under the provisions of the District Municipal Act.
-
On the 27th...
To continue reading
Request your trial