CUTTACK MUNICIPALITY Vs. MADANLAL KAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASUSINESS of Municipal authorities in prosecuting the offenders has given rise to this revision Under Section 397, Cr. P. C.

(2.) OPP . parties have a house in Cuttack Town which is within the area constituting municipality under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (heien - after referred to as 'the Act'). On 17 -11 -1982, a complaint was filed by Pitambar Parida, Amin of the Municipality being authorised by the Executive Officer against the opp. parties alleging that on 17 -2 -1982 it was first detected that the persons complained against had commenced the construction/reconstruction of two pucca latrines septic tank and soak pit adjacent to the well. This complaint petition is in a printed proforma where various columns have been filled up by typing and many of the columns remained without filling up the vacant portion or even scoring them out. There is no. explanation why there was delay of more than nine months after detection to file the complaint. Be that as it may, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognisance of the offence Under Section 385 -A and directed issue of process fixing 25 -1 -1983 for appearance of accused. On 4 -4 -1983 to which day case was posted for appearance of accused, process came back after service by affixure on refusal. Directing issue of bailable warrant of arrest, appearance was fixed to 6 -6 -1983 and complainant was directed to pay the process fee by 20 -4 -1983. Before that date accused persons appeared on 11 -4 -1983, a date to which the case was not fixed. They filed a petition to record their confession on the basis of which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate explained them the particulars of offence and recorded their statement Under Section 313, Cr. P. C. where they admitted guilt Question Under Section 313, Cr. P. C. was that two pucua septic latrines, tank and soak pit which was detected since 12 -2 -1982 having been constructed without obtaining any permission from Cuttack Municipality. This was accepted by accused persons. On the very day, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate imposed fine of Rs. 20/ - each which was paid by the accused persons and case was closed.

(3.) MR . B. Rath, learned counsel for complainant petitioner submitted that both the grounds for dismissal of the complaint are valnerable. According to Mr. Rath offence Under Section 385 -A is a continuing offence and as such, limitation as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for specific offences from the date of occurrence is not applicable Mr. Rath submitted that even if on conviction offence till date of conviction may not be maintainable, yet continuance of offence thereafter would not attract the bar of previous conviction.