Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[1] These are eight criminal appeals against the orders passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate 8th Court, Girgaum, Bom. bay, acquitting the accused in each case. The eight accused were charged with having committed offences punishable under Section 471. City of Bom. bay Municipal Act, III [3] of 1888, in so fat as they failed to afford to the owner of the premises facilities as ordered by the Chief Judge of The Court of Small Causes for enabling the landlord to comply with municipal requisitions under Section 354 of the Act and thereby contravened Section 507 (3) of the Act. The eight accused were the tenants of The owner of she building and the Municipality had issued to the landlord a requisition under Section 354 of the Act to remove the structures etc., which were in ruins or likely to fall. The tenants apparently did not hand over possession of the premises to the landlord, with the result that the landlord was enable to comply with the requisition of the Municipality. He, therefore, approached the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes for the requisite order under Section 507 of the Act and the Chief Judge made an order on 16 3 1960, ordering each of the accused to hand over to the landlord vacant possession of the premises on or before 16 4-1950 This again the tenants would not do, with the result that the tenants were guilty of having contravened the orders under Section 507 (9) of the Act. This default on the part of she tenants was taken by the Municipality to be a continuing offence, and in so far as on 3-7-1950, and thereafter the default continued, the Municipality took 3-7-1950, as the date of the commission of the offence and filed the complaints against each of the accused under Section 471 of the Act in the terms noted above. The learned Presidency Ma-

[2] The point which arises before us is covered by the decision of Rajadhyabsha and Dixit JJ, in State v. Babu Gulam, Mohamed, cri Rovn. Apln, NO. 114 of 1951. The case there was, so far as the point of limitation was concerned, on all fours, with the case before us, In that case a requisition had been made by the Municipality on the landlord and on an application made by the land, lord to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes an order had been made on 14-8-1950, directing the applicant and the other tenants to afford all reasonable facilities to the owner of the premises for complying with the requisition contained in the Municipal notice and 21-8-1950, was fixed as the date within which the tenants had to vacate in order to enable the landlord to carry out the requisition. The prosecution was, however, launched on 23-11-1950, and the question that arose for consideration of their Lordships was whether the prosecution was beyond time having regard to the provisions of Section 507 (3) of the Act. The learned Judges there came to the conclusion that if limitation commenced on 22-8-1950, the effect of Section 514 read with Section 323 of the Act was that the prosecution was obviously time-barred. They however proceeded to consider an argument which was advanced before them that the offence was a continuing offence, that the offence consist-ed in the refusal of the tenant in complying with the order made by the learned Chief Judge and the order made by the learned Chief Judge was that the tenant, viz., the present applicant, should vacate the premises and that therefore there was after the period of eight days a refusal on the part of the applicant to vacate the premises and the refusal continued because the order was not com-plied with. The learned Judges, therefore, hold that there was as much on 22-8-1950, a refusal on the part of the applicant to vacate the premises as it was on 23-8-1950, and an the following days and the prosecution was filed by the Municipality on 23-11-1950, and it was clear there are that the prosecution was well within time. The learned Judges, therefore, hold that the offence being a continuing offence, the period of three months within which the prosecution should have been launched was to be calculated with reference to the date or dates during which the offence was continuing.

"Whoever...
(b) fails to comply with any requisition lawfully made upon him under any of the said sections, sub sections, or clauses, stall be punishes, for each such offence, with fine which may extend to the amount mentioned in that behalf in the third column of the said table."

In the table we find the last offence provided, viz. the non-compliance of the terms of any order passed under Section 507 (3), the subject being defined as the "occupier of building or land to afford Owner facilities for complying with provisions of this Act, etc , after eight days from issue of order by Chief Judge of Small Causes Court," the fine which may be imposed being prescribed as Rs. 200. This is the offence as laid down in Section 471 of the Act. In as far, however, as some of the offences which are laid down in this section may as well be continuing offences, a provision is further made in Section 472 providing for the punishment of such continuing offences and Section 472 lays down that:

[10] the result, therefore, will he that the criminal appeals will be allowed and the cases will be remanded to the learned Presidency Magistrate for disposal according to law, having regard to the observations which we have made above.

Vyas, J.

[11] There is no doubt that the offence in these cases under Section 471 (b), City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, was a continuing offence. The gravamen of it lay in failing to comply with the requisition of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court .which was made by the Chief Judge under Section 507 (2), City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, and therefore every day the respondents failed to comply with the requisition after 16-4-1950. which was the last date fixed by the Chief Judge for the vacating of the premises by the respondents, they committed a fresh offence under Section 471 (b) of the Act above mentioned. the offence was committed first on 10-4-1960, and thereafter everyday a fiesb offence was committed by the respondents who persisted in refusing to comply with the Chief Judge's requisition issued by him under Section 507 (2) of the Act. That being so a question at once arises as to what is the starting point of limitation for the purpose of Section 614 (c) of the Act. Section 514 (c) says :