V.G. Oak, J. - (1.) These two connected appeals by Varanasi Improvement Trust are directed against two orders of acquittal. The principal question involved in these appeals is whether a boundary-wall falls within the definition of the term'under the U.P. Municipalities Act.
(2.) In case No. 18/1591 of 1958 M. A. Nomani was the accused. He was prosecuted on the following allegations. On 4-7-57 a Building Inspector gave a report that, the accused was constructing a boundary-wall on his land at Sarnath without any permission from the Varanasi Improvement Trust. A notice was issued to the accused to stop further construction. Upon a second inspection it was found that, the boundary-wall had been completed. The accused was prosecuted for having started and completed the construction of the boundary-wall without sanction from the Improvement Trust, Varanasi, and in spite of the notice to the contrary. The accused admitted having constructed the boundary-wall in question. The defence was that the wall had been constructed in village Baraipur, arid not at Sarnath.
(3.) In Criminal Case No. 16/1518 of 1957 Sohan Lal Agarwal was the accused. He was prosecuted on the allegation that, he had constructed the boundary-wall in his grove situated on Sarnath-Pisanhariya Road. The Improvement Trust served notice on the accused on 17-4-57 for stopping the construction. Subsequently, it was found that the boundary-wall had been completed. This accused also was prosecuted for having made the boundary-wall without sanction. The plea of the accused was that, the construction had been completed before the area was brought under the Improvement Scheme.;