M.A. KHALEQUE, SANITARY INSPECTOR Vs. PUNDLIK S/O. RANBAJI SARODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, a Sanitary Inspector, posted in Nanded Municipal Corporation, is challenging the judgment and order dated 14-07- 2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Appeal No.64 of 1997. Vide the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, who was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for offence under Ss. 52(1)(a), 53(7) and 54(2) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (the MRTP Act) by its judgment and order dtd. 23/10/1997 in RCC No.549 of 1996.

(2.) In brief, prosecution was launched against present respondent for offence under aforesaid Ss. on the allegations that during visit of complainant to Shivajinagar area on 23/11/1995, construction admeasuring 10x12 ft. each of the two rooms was found to be carried out by respondent accused, who was present there with his wife. When complainant sought necessary papers of constructions, it was noticed that there was no permission for erection of aforesaid structures. After panchanama, he reported incident to the Chief Officer, who on his satisfaction, caused issuance of notice against the accused and thereafter, Chief Officer gave authorization for prosecution on the basis of which, above RCC No.549 of 1996 came to be instituted. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, appreciated oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and recorded a finding that prosecution has proved the charges and thereby convicted the present respondent vide judgment and order dtd. 23/10/1997 for the offence under aforesaid Ss. . Feeling aggrieved by the same, original accused preferred Criminal Appeal bearing No.64 of 1997 and same came to be allowed. Dissatisfied by the same, original complainant preferred instant appeal before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that during visit of complainant, illegal construction was noticed and therefore, when the construction activity was noticed to be illegal, panchanama was drawn by the complainant. He further submitted that, complainant reported the matter to the Chief Officer, who was competent to accord sanction. That, the Chief Officer accorded sanction and therefore, prosecution was launched. Learned counsel submitted that entire procedure was followed and there were no loopholes. That, accused has also been served with prior notice of which there was no satisfactory reply and therefore, prosecution was launched and on the basis of testimony of complainant, prosecution has made out a case and therefore, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, was right in convicting the accused.