MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR MAHINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was prosecuted under section 332 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (for short DMC Act). But the learned Metropolitan Magistrate declined to proceed in the matter on the ground that the complaint was barred by the limitation as set out under section 471 of the DMC Act. The impugned order says that since the offence had come to the knowledge on 19th of March 1986 the complaint ought to have been filed within six months thereafter but it was in fact filed on 14th October 1986.

(2.) The short question that was canvassed before us by Mr. Lao is that an amendment came to be effected in the DMC Act in 1984 which came into force on 10th of December 1985 and section 466A was added to the DMC Act. According to Mr. Lao since some of the offences under the DMC Act including the offence under section 332 has been made cognizable and the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made applicable the limitation would be determined by section 458 the Code of Criminal Procedure. We may notice section 466A of the DMC Act which reads as under:

(3.) According to our reading all that section 466A slates is that certain offences under the DMC Act including the offences under section 332 shall be investigated and dealt with as if it were a cognizable offence. Mr. Gandhi has invited our attention to section 471 of the DMC Act which lays down the limitation for the offence under the DMC. Act Section 471 we may. therefore, quote hert, which reads as under :