G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision petition under s. 397 read with section 401 Cr. P. C. against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1981 dated 5th October, 1981 where by he affirmed the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Jaipur City Jaipur in case No. 2303 of 1975 dated 30. 3. 1981.
(2.) THE complainant is U. I. T. and the offence which the accused is charged of making construction without obtaining permission in an area which is covered by number of schemes of the U. I. T. During the course of the arguments, in this court, it was pointed out by Mr. A. K. Sharma that the so called approved scheme was never produced. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma counsel for the non-patitioner in reply to the above sub-mision submitted that a letter was produced showing that the scheme was approved and number has been given and these numbers have been find place in the judgment of the appellate court. It is true that the number and date has been given in the judgment, but it is equally true that a simple piece of paper, containing them has been produced in the appellate court for the first time. In the judgment of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Rastogi Vs. U. I. T. (l) it has been held that such a scheme and its approval should be proved and material must be placed on the record to show that such a scheme of the trust and the plan was finally adopted by the Trust and was approved. Similarly in another case reported in. U. I. T. Vs. Madan Lal (2) this court has held that when on account of non-compliance of notice punishment so made in a prosecution by the U. I. T. then it is necessary that scheme should be produced on the record which was framed by the Trust, relating to the area in which the building was constructed. Mere publication of notification issued by State on the request of the Trust specifying the area for which the Trust decide to frame the scheme is not enough because what is covered under section 32 is a notification and not a scheme framed by a Trust for the urban area. The notification decides the decision of the trust to prepare a scheme and not the approved scheme.
(3.) IN view of the above, it would not be in the interest of justice to discuss the facts any more because it is a common ground that such a scheme and the notification approving scheme and publication of scheme has not been produced. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma prays that the case may be remanded because it concerns the organised planned, development of the City of Jaipur and unauthorised construction if allowed to go unpunished by such acquittals, would result in great violence to the planned development of the City. Mr. A. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner opposes the prayer of Mr. Kamlakar Sharma on the ground that U. I. T. is at fault for non-production of the scheme and, therefore, no second opportunity must be given by remand specially when the case has become old. Having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel on this vital aspect of the case, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to permit the U. I. T. to produce the scheme because the planned development of City of Jaipur which is Capital of Rajasthan is of great public importance and omission and commissions by haphazard development and unauthorised constructions should not be ignored lightly. ;