V.K.Mehrotra - (1.) TULSI Ram applicant is aggrieved by his conviction u/Sec. 293/299 of the U. P. Municipalities Act and the sentence of fine of Rs. 400/- by the Magistrate, Faridpur by his judgment and order dated June 5, 1973 which was upheld by the Addl. District Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1973 decided by him on 15th of May, 1974. The conviction of the applicant is based on the allegation that he made certain constructions adjoining the Nali of the Town Area Committee without obtaining its permission. The complaint leading to the case was filed by the Chairman of Faridpur town area who appeared in the case as P. W. 1. The applicant admitted having raised constructions but claimed to have done so after moving an application for permission and after having obtained oral permission of the Chairman.
(2.) IN his statement before the court, Sri M. A. Khan P. W. 1, Chairman, Town Area Committee, Faridpur stated that the applicant had moved an application for permission to construct the disputed building on Jaunary 14, 1972 and had also submitted the plans exhibits P. 1, P. 2 and P. 3. No order was passed on this application as the plans did not contain neither the signatures of the applicant nor the scale of measurement. According to him, a reply Ex. P. 4 was sent to the applicant on 26-12- 1972 to the effect that permission could not be granted on that account. He also stated that a few days earlier, that is, on December 20, 1972, a notice, Ex. 5, was also given to the applicant to the effect that the applicant was raising the constructions without obtaining the permission. He denied to have given oral permission to the applicant to raise the constructions. From the judgment of the learned Magistrate as also that of the learned Sessions Judge, it is clear that the bye-laws require that no building would be constructed without permission of the town area. It does not, however, appear from the judgment as to whether the the bye-laws provide that the permission on behalf of the Committee would be accorded by the Chairman of the Committee. There is nothing on the record of the case to indicate the time which may have been prescribed for waiting for the sanction of the plan and of the application for obtaining permission of the Town Area Committee for raising constructions. The evidence of the Chairman of the Committee itself makes it clear that no intimation about the sanction or otherwise of the building plan submitted by the applicant was communicated to the applicant within a reasonable time. For the first time, according to the Chairman of the Committee, the applicant was told on December 26, 1972 almost about a year from the date of his application that no permission could be given. The complaint made by the Committee in court alleges that the applicant did not obtain the permission of the Chairman of the Committee for making constructions and that the applicant was, therefore, guilty of the offence punishable u/Sec. 293 or 299 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. Sec. 293 admittedly has no application to a case like the present. The complaint appears to have been mechanically drawn out without application of mind as to the precise offence with which the applicant was punishable. In the circumstances, it will not be possible to uphold the conviction of the applicant or the sentence awarded to him. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The conviction of the applicant as well as the sentence awarded to him are set aside. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the applicant. Revision allowed.;