Sankari Prasad Das Ghosh, J. - (1.)The revisional application is directed against an order passed by Shri S. K. Kar learned 4th Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, in Case No, 259B of 1977 under S, 537/537(2)(b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience).
(2.)The opposity party no 1, the Corporation of Calcutta, filed a complaint against the accused petitioners, Oriental Enterprise and Shri G. L. Singhania, in the Court of the Municipal Magistrate Calcutta, under S. 436(1) read with S. 537 of the Act on the allegation of establishment of a workshop run by electricity by the accused petitioners in premises No. 18-B Ripon Street, Calcutta, without the previous written permission of the Commissioner of the Corporation of Calcutta. This complaint, registered as Case No. 3911B of 1975, ended in conviction of the accused-petitioner on the basis of their plea of guilt. By an order passed on 17.2.1976, the accused-petitioner on the basis of their plea of guilt. By an order passed on 17.2.1976, the accused-petitioners were sentenced in that Case No. 3911B of 1975 to pay a fine of Rs, 700/-. Subsequently, on 27.5.1977, another petition of complaint was filed in the court of the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, against the accused petitioners on the allegation of continuing to commit the same offence of establishing an Engineering Workshop run by electric motor at he aforesaid premises without the written permission of the Commissioner, though prosecuted and convicted under S 436(1) of the Act on 17.2.1976 with a fine of Rs. 700/- in Case No. 3911B of 1975. The period of offence was mentioned in this second complaint as from 18.32.1976 to 17.2.1976, i.e.,a period of 304 days. This second complaint was registered as Case No. 259B of 1977. The accused no 2, G L Singhania, entered appearance in the case and filed a petition on 12.9.1979 for discharge of the accused-petitioners. This petition was disposed of by learned Municipal Magistrate by the impugned order dated 5.12.1979. The contentions of he accused-petitioners before the learned Municipal Magistrate were that the case (Case No. 259B of 1977) was barred by limitation on the basis of the provision in S. 582 of the Act and that the case also fell with in the mischief of S.300(1) Cr. P.C. The learned Magistrate negatives both these contentions of the accused petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 5.12.1979, the present revisional application has been filed.
(3.)Mr. Sanyal, appearing for the accused-petitioners, has argued that as there is no obligation on the part of an accused charged under S. 436(1) of the Act to take out a license, the period of limitation enjoined by S. 5825(1) of the Act will apply in this case and as such, the second complaint filed on 27.5.1977 is barred by limitation. He has further argued that the proceeding in case No. 259B of 1977 is against the principle of "autrefois convict" as mentioned in S. 300(1) Cr. P.C. On these grounds, Mr. Sanyal prays for quashing the proceedings in Case No 259B of 1977.