Allahabad High Court
Indra Prakash vs State And Another on 18 July, 2014
Bench: Ranjana Pandya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Reserved
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 299 of 1990
Revisionist :- Indra Prakash
Opposite Party :- State And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shashi Nandan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aga,Navin Sinha
Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.
1. This revision has been preferred against the Judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 1987 modifying the Judgment and order dated 9.11.987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class in Criminal Case No. 128 of 1987 convicting the revisionist under Section 26(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 reducing the fine from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,000/- and in default to one month's simple imprisonment.
2. I have heard the learned A.G.A. None was present on behalf of the revisionist even in the revised call.
3. This Court has only to satisfy itself about the correctness, illegality or propriety of the sentence passed by the appellate court.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint before the Munsif Magistrate with the allegations that its Junior Engineer Ramesh Chander along with Rajiv Rathore and Y.P. Singh visited the premises of the appellant situated at 8, Madhobari, Naibasti, P.S. Premnagar on 12.8.84 at 11 a.m. and found the revisionist raising unauthorised constructions by constructing new factory building for which no permission from the Bareilly Development Authority was sought as required by Section 14 of the Act. Since the premises fell under the masterplan construction of a factory which was against the provisions of Section 16 of the Act which was punishable under Section 26(2) of the Act, an order under Section 28(1) of the Act was passed by the Deputy Secretary of the Bareilly Development Authority which was duly served upon the revisionist on 21.1.1984 but he failed to comply and accordingly committed an offence punishable under Section 26(4) of the Act. The requisite sanction for the prosecution of the revisionist was obtained from the Vice Chairman and the complaint was filed by the Assistant Engineer Rakesh Kumar Shukla. The revisionist accused claimed trial before the Munsif Magistrate who after examining Ramesh Chander (P.W.1) and Harish Chandra (P.W.2) found the revisionist guilty and sentenced him to a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months.
5. Feeling aggrieved the revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal (bearing No. 221 of 1987 which was decided on 15.11.1989 which was partly allowed and the sentence of fine was reduced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,000/- and proportionately the imprisonment in default was reduced to one months simple imprisonment against which order the accused has come up in the present revision.
6. A perusal of the grounds of revision shows that the revisionist has alleged that no offence under Section 26(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 was made out against the accused. I would like to make a reference of 'land and new ' referred in the complaint. For this P.W.1-Ramesh Chander was examined.
7. Perusal of the Judgment of the appellate court shows that the appellate court came to the conclusion that even the trial court concluded that factory was already in existence since the year 1974 but it has come on record, according to the evidence of Ramesh Chander, that the revisionist had made some improvements is existing building of his factory and it is in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 that the parapet of the building was being constructed which are generally constructed for supporting a structure. It is clear that since no sanction was obtained for construction of parapet, the revisionist has rightly been guilty of offence under Section 26(1) of the Act. I think both the courts below rightly held that the revisionist has made development, as has been defined under Section 2(3) which reads as under:-
"2(e). "development" with its grammatical variations, means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in any building or land, and includes re-development."
8. The Act prohibits anyone from raising any construction in an area under the masterplan without prior sanction of the authority. As regards Section 26(1) is concerned Section 26(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 reads as follows:-
"26.Penalities.- (1) Any person who whether at his own instance or at the instance of any other person or any body (including a department of Government) undertakes or carries out development of any land in contravention of the master plan or zonal development plan or without the permission, approval or sanction referred to in Section 14 or in contravention of any condition subject to which such permission, approval or sanction has been granted, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to [fifty thousand rupees] and in the case of continuing offence, with further fine which may extend to [two thousand and five hundred rupees] for every day during which such offence continues after conviction for the first commission of the offence."
9. Thus, it is clear from the evidence adduced before the Magistrate that in spite of service of notice upon the revisionist, he proceeded to make the illegal constructions. As such, the Judgment of the appellate court does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety.
10. In the circumstances, the revision fails and is dismissed accordingly. The learned trial court to get the sentence executed forthwith.
Dt/-18.7.14
Ram Murti
