Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1978 (9) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... struction viz. on the expiry of fifteen days after the receipt of notice; and that, the expression "six months" which occurs in S. 533 of the Act means six calendar months and not 180 days. For these reasons we set aside the judgment of the High Court and send back the case to the learned Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law. - CRL.A. 69 OF 1972 - - - Dated:- 13-9-1978 - Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, RANJIT SINGH SARKARIA AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ. JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C.J. On December 5, 1967, the Baranagore Municipality served a notice on the respondent alleging that he had erected an obstruction over the main municipal drain without the permission of the Administrator of the Muni .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... any obstruction or encroachment which he may have erected upon any public street, drain or watercourse and which remains so erected after the period covered by any permission given in that behalf has expired. The notice dated December 5, 1967, was given by the Municipality to the respondent under this provision. The relevant part of section 500(1)(b) of the Act provides that whoever commits any' offence by failing to comply with any direction lawfully given to him or any requisition lawfully made upon him under any of the provisions of the Act, shall be punished with fine which may extend to the amount mentioned in the third column of the table following that section. Section 533 of the Act prescribes a period of limitation for filin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n has expired. The person to whom a lawful direction has been given or upon whom a lawful requisition has been made through notice under section 240(1)(b) has to carry out the direction or comply with the requisition, as the case may be. Failure in that regard attracts penal consequences. Though clause (b) of section 240(1) does not expressly provide that the Commissioners may permit such time as they think fit for the removal of the encroachment, it is implicit in the power conferred by that clause that by a proper direction or requisition, the Commissioners can allow for the removal of the encroachment such time as they consider reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Section 500(1)(b) of the Act creates a somewhat artificial offence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is impossible to accept the submission made by the respondent's counsel that the offence must be deemed to have been committed when the obstruction or encroachment was erected, which of course would be prior to December 5, 1967, when the Municipality served the notice on the respondent. It may perhaps be that constructing an encroachment or obstruction on a public street may itself amount to an offence under some provision or the other of the Act, but we need not go into that question because the offence for which the respondent is being prosecuted does not consist in his erecting the encroachment or obstruction on a public street but in his failure to remove it within the period allowed to him by the notice. The error into which the Hi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... must be held to have been duly complied with. To sum up, we are of the view that the offence charged against the respondent consists, not in the erection of an obstruction by him, but in his failure to comply with the direction lawfully given to him to remove that obstruction; that the offence must be deemed to have been committed by the respondent, if at all, not on the date of the notice viz. December 5, 1967 nor on any anterior date but on the expiry of the period permitted to him for removing the obstruction viz. on the expiry of fifteen days after the receipt of notice; and that, the expression six months which occurs in S. 533 of the Act means six calendar months and not 180 days. For these reasons we set aside the judgment of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates