H.L. Capoor, J. - (1.) AJIT Singh has preferred this application in revision against the order, dated 20 -3 -11971 of Sri B.K. Misra, 1st Addl. Sessions judge, Kumaun, allowing the appeal; in part and maintaining the conviction of the Applicant Under Section 9 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1918, hereinafter called the Act, but reducing his sentence of fine from Rs. 500/ - its awarded by the learned Magistrate, to Rs. 250/ -.
(2.) IT appears that Sri Bharadwaj (P.W. 1), Overseer Regulated Area, along with his peon Bhagwat Singh (P.W. 2) while on inspection, found the Applicant constructing house over Khasra plot No. 465 in the abadi of Kichha, which area is Covered within the operation of this Act. A site plan (Ex. Ka 2) was prepared by Sri Bharadwaj and a report (Ex. Ka -3) was submitted by him. Thereafter the Prescribed Authority gave the sanction for the prosecution of the Applicant. The complaint was then lodged. The Applicant denied to have committed any offence. His defence was that his house was 14 -15 years old and that he was not constructing a new house but was only making repairs to the old house already existing. Two witnesses, namely, Bachan Singh and Harcharan Lal, were examined in support of the defence.
(3.) THE courts below after considering the evidence on record and placing reliance upon the statements of the witnesses examined I on behalf of the prosecution and disbelieving the defence witnesses, arrived it the finding that the Applicant had constructed a new house without the prior sanction of the Prescribed Authority, thereby having committed an offence Under Section 9 of the Act. The learned Magistrate accordingly convicted and sentenced the Applicant to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. The conviction was upheld by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, but the sentence of fine was reduced to Rs. 250/ - from Rs. 500/ -.;