9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction under sections 488/300 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. 2. Question of limitation in the prosecution. 3. Legality of the notice served on the appellant. 4. Allegations of prejudice to the appellant. 5. Prosecution timeline and additional evidence. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to an appeal against the conviction of the appellant under sections 488/300 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. The appellant had encroached upon a road-side land of the Howrah Municipality, leading to the prosecution. The lower courts had initially convicted the appellant, which was later altered by the High Court to a conviction under a different section, reducing the fine imposed. The Supreme Court upheld this alteration, emphasizing that it did not change the substance of the accusation but aligned it with the facts found during the trial. 2. The question of limitation was raised concerning the prosecution timeline. The appellant argued that the complaint was beyond the prescribed period of three months under the Act. However, the courts, including the High Court, found that the complaint was lodged within the statutory limitation period, thus rejecting the limitation argument raised by the appellant. 3. The legality of the notice served on the appellant was also a crucial issue. The notice required the removal of encroachment caused by a compound wall, which the courts determined fell under section 300 of the Act, not section 299 as mentioned in the notice. Despite the discrepancy in the section cited in the notice, the courts held that the essence of the notice was to remove the encroachment, which was lawfully made, justifying the conviction under section 300. 4. Allegations of prejudice to the appellant were addressed in the judgment. The appellant claimed potential entitlement to compensation if convicted under a different section. However, the court dismissed this argument, stating that the alteration in the section did not prejudice the appellant's defense or rights, especially since the fine imposed was reduced due to the alteration. 5. Lastly, the prosecution timeline and additional evidence were scrutinized. The appellant contended that the prosecution was beyond time, citing additional evidence introduced at the appellate stage. However, the courts found no merit in this argument, affirming that the complaint was lodged within the prescribed period, supported by the additional evidence presented before the court. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction under sections 488/300 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, dismissing the appeal based on the detailed analysis of the issues raised during the trial and subsequent appeals.
|
