9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (4) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission of the Board, on the Municipal land, which is creating obstruction in the free flow of the traffic on the municipal road which is against law and as such has made himself liable for punishment under Section 299 of the Act. Cognizance was taken by the learned City Magistrate on this information and he transferred the case to the Court of H. P. Srivastava, another magistrate, for trial. 3. The respondent was summoned and the substance of the accusation was stated to him. He admitted that he was occupying a khokha on the land of the municipal board but asserted that the aforesaid khokha had been constructed by one Sona Ram with the permission of the Board. 4. The complainant Municipal Board examined its Fire I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon, erect any structure, do anything upon, or occupy in any manner any road, patri, street or place, situated within the Municipality and being the property of the Crown or of the Board or being under the control of the Board: ............... 6. A contravention of the provisions of bye-law No. 1 has been made punishable by buy-law No. 2 which runs as follows: 2. Whoever contravenes the provisions of bye-law No. 1 shall on conviction be punishable with fine which may extend to ₹ 250/-, and, when the breach is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to ₹ 5/- for every day after the date of the first conviction during which the offender proved to have persisted in the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icipal Board and that he has been paying rent therefore. He has also failed to prove that the rent receipts (Exs. Kha. 1 to Kha 5) which have been filed by him are in respect of rent paid by Sona Ram to the Municipal Board for the same land and for the same khokha which was being occupied by the respondent. Sona Ram himself has not come in the witness box and there is nothing on the record to connect these receipts with the impugned structure or the land under it. 11. It is really strange that the trial court missed this fact and accepted the receipts as evidence of permission having been granted by the Municipal Board to the respondent for occupying the khokha in question. 12. Even if it is assumed that the khokha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent has argued that the complaint on which the cognizance of the case was taken by the Magistrate was defective and not by a competent person inasmuch as there is nothing to show that the Municipal Board had authorised its Executive Officer for filing the complaint. I do not find any force in this argument. No doubt the complaint on which the cognizance had been taken is not happily worded, but it has been signed by the Executive Officer Municipal Board and it mentions the accusation against the respondent to the effect that he had constructed a khokha without the permission of the Municipal Board on its land. Schedule II to the U. P. Municipalities Act which deals with the scheduled powers of an Executive Officer read with Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
