1964 (4) TMI 140 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of acquittal under Section 299 of U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916.
- Determination of whether the respondent occupied a khokha with or without permission of the municipal board.
- Allegation of defective complaint and authorization for filing the complaint.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 299 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The Municipal Board of Saharanpur alleged that the respondent erected a khokha without permission, obstructing traffic flow. The respondent claimed the khokha was built by another with permission. The prosecution presented witnesses confirming the obstruction caused by the khokha on municipal land. The respondent failed to prove permission or rent payment for the khokha. The court noted the absence of evidence connecting rent receipts to the disputed structure.

The central issue revolved around whether the respondent occupied the khokha with or without the municipal board's permission. The respondent's defense of permission granted to another individual did not absolve him from proving authorization for his occupation. Despite presenting rent receipts, the respondent failed to establish a legal basis for his occupation. The court emphasized the necessity of explicit permission from the municipal board for such structures on public property.

Regarding the complaint's validity, the defense argued it lacked authorization from a competent person. However, the court found the complaint, though imperfectly worded, was signed by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, authorized to file complaints under the U. P. Municipalities Act. The court upheld the competence of the Executive Officer to initiate prosecutions, dismissing the challenge to the complaint's validity.

The judgment allowed the appeal, setting aside the acquittal and convicting the respondent under Section 299 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, along with bye-law 2 of the Municipal Board of Saharanpur. The respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of &8377; 25.