Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.32 seconds)The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980
Section 363 in The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Section 488 in The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Section 535 in The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Section 631 in The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Narendra Chandra Rudra Pal vs Sabarali Bhuiya on 8 April, 1925
3. The question that pertinently arises in this case is whether the petitioner can be said to have committed an 'offence'; in other words, whether the petitioner is an 'accused' person within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 363 under which the present order is passed by the Municipal Magistrate provides that if the Corporation are satisfied that the erection of any building has been commenced without obtaining the written permission of the Corporation, they may after giving the owner of such building an opportunity of being heard apply to a Magistrate and such Magistrate may make an order directing that such erection be demolished by the owner thereof. If this order by the Magistrate is not carried out, under Section 488 the person on whom it is passed renders himself liable to punishment for an 'offence', which word appears for the first time in the penal clause of Section 488 and to a fine the amount of which if prescribed in the section. Under Section 535 of the Act the Magistrate may order him to pay a fine as well as require him to demolish the work, thus making a distinction between a punishable offence and an executive order [B] In our opinion so long as there is no disobedience by a party to the order of demolition passed by the Magistrate he commits no offence; i e., when he disobeys that order he then can be said to have committed an offence and renders himself liable to punishment under Section 488 of the Act. [B] It is further to be observed that proceedings under Section 363 are started not upon complaint but upon an application made to the Magistrate, whereas in proceedings for rendering a person liable to punishment for an offence under the Act, complaint has to be made before a Magistrate within the period prescribed by the Act. It has now been held in the Full Bench case of Narendra Chandra Rudra Pal v. Sabar All Bhuiya that a party to a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, is not an accused person. In the same sense a party to a proceeding under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, is also not an accused person though under the section the Magistrate has power to order the demolition or removal of the obstruction.