40 being the charges payable therefor.
The companyplaint was heard on 11 4 1951.
That was heard by K. C. Chunder, J. He agreed with the Magistrate that under section 363 the companyrt had a discretion whether it should order demolition or number, and that as the Corporation had taken proceedings under section 488 and was companytent to have a fine imposed on the respondent for breach of Rule 62, it would be unjust to permit it thereafter to start proceedings under section 363 for the further relief of demolition of the building.
The respondent pleaded guilty, and was fined Rs.
Appeal under Article 134 1 c of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and order dated the 19th January 1954 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The respondent appeared by companynsel on 13 2 1951, and after hearing him, the appellant decided on 6 3 1951 to move the companyrt for an order under section 363, and the petition out of which the present appeal arises, was actually filed on 4 4 1951.
865 of 1953 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 29th April 1953 of the Court of Third Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta in Case No.
There was delay in serving the respondent, and after he was actually served which was on 17 9 1951, the case underwent several adjournments, and finally on 29 4 1953 the Magistrate passed an order dismissing the petition.
The respondent is the owner of house No.
36, Armenian Street, Calcutta.
While the proceedings under section 488 were pending before the Magistrate, the Corporation would appear to have examined the nature of the companystructions put up by the respondent, and found that they companytravened Rules 3, 14, 25 and 32 of Schedule XVII, and decided to take action under section 363.
Against this order, the appellant preferred a revision to the High Court of Calcutta.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta affirming the order of the Municipal Magistrate, whereby he dismissed an application filed by the appellant under section 363 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for demolition of certain companystructions on the ground that they had been erected without the previous permission of the authorities and in companytravention of the prescriptions laid down in the building rules.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
108 A of 1951.
There was numberdispute that the building rules had been companytravened.
On 13 12 1950 the appellant lodged a companyplaint before the Magistrate under section 488 read with Rule 62 of Schedule XVII charging the respondent with companystructing two rooms in the fifth storey without obtaining permission.
C. Chatterji, S. K. Bose and Sukumar Ghose, with him for the appellant.
What followed thereon is graphically described by the learned Chief Justice of the High Court in his order dated 9 4 1954 granting leave to appeal to this Court, as a hide and seek game.
P. Kar, A. K. Mukherjee and D. N. Mukherjee, with him for the respondent.
A police constable was then posted for watch under section 365 3 of the Act, and he companytinued there till 10 11 1950, on which date the respondent wrote to the Corporation that he would number proceed further with the companystruction.
On 7 12 1950 the Inspector again inspected the premises, and found that the companystruc tion was being proceeded with, and had a companystable posted again for watch.
60 of 1954.
The police watch was thereupon withdrawn on the respondent paying Rs.
On 28 10 1950 the Building Inspector of the Corporation discovered that some new masonry structures were being companystructed on the fifth storey of that house.
When the Inspector ceased to inspect the premises daily, the respondent resumed the work, and on 7 11 1950 when the Inspector came again on the scene, he found that the companystruction was being proceeded with.
November 17.
On receipt of the numberice, the respondent stopped the work for a few days, and thereby lulled the Building Inspector into the belief that numberfurther companystructions would be made.
