1978 (9) TMI 168 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the prosecution was instituted in the instant case within six months next after the commission of the offence as required by S. 533 of the Act? Held that - The offence charged against the respondent consists, not in the erection of an obstruction by him, but in his failure to comply with the direction lawfully given to him to remove that obstruction; that the offence must be deemed to have been committed by the respondent, if at all, not on the date of the notice viz. December 5, 1967 nor on any anterior date but on the expiry of the period permitted to him for removing the obstruction viz. on the expiry of fifteen days after the receipt of notice; and that, the expression six months which occurs in S. 533 of the Act means six calendar months and not 180 days. For these reasons we set aside the judgment of the High Court and send back the case to the learned Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of limitation period under section 533 of the Bengal Municipal Act for filing prosecutions.
2. Determination of the point at which the offence under section 500(1)(b) of the Act is committed.
3. Construction of the term "six months" in section 533 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the limitation period prescribed under section 533 of the Bengal Municipal Act for filing prosecutions. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint, contending that since the prosecution was not initiated within six months after the commission of the offence, it was time-barred under section 533 of the Act.

2. The second issue pertains to determining when the offence under section 500(1)(b) of the Act is committed. The respondent was alleged to have failed to comply with a direction lawfully given to him to remove an obstruction over the main municipal drain. The Court analyzed that the offence did not consist of erecting the obstruction but rather in the failure to remove it within the stipulated time frame provided in the notice served by the Municipality.

3. The final issue involves the construction of the term "six months" as used in section 533 of the Act. The Court clarified that the term "six months" should be interpreted as six calendar months and not 180 days, based on the definition provided in the Bengal General Clauses Act. This interpretation was crucial in determining whether the prosecution, filed on June 19, 1968, was instituted within the statutory limitation period following the alleged commission of the offence.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the offence charged against the respondent was not in erecting the obstruction but in failing to comply with the lawful direction to remove it within the specified time. The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the case to the Magistrate for further proceedings in accordance with the law, emphasizing the correct interpretation of the limitation period and the point at which the offence was deemed to have been committed.