EMPEROR Vs. BHIKHABHAI MOTIRAM ADENWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revision applications in which the same point arises. The accused were convicted under Section 123(7) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, for having constructed a building without permission.

(2.) THE facts are that on March 2, 1940, the accused gave a notice under Section 123(1) of the Act as to the work they were proposing to do, and under Sub-section (2) the Chief Officer required them to make certain alterations in their plans, which were duly made, and, according to the accused, they received no further communication from the Chief Officer, Accordingly on August 1 they gave notice that, having received no further communication from the Chief Officer for a period of four months, they were proposing to start work, and they did start work on August10. On August 14, the Municipality wrote saying that on April 4 they had required the accused to set their work back twenty feet from the privy, which they would be required to do under by-law 26 of the Ahmedabad Municipality.