Punjab-Haryana High Court
Municipal Council Dhuri vs Satbir Singh on 16 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005736
109 2024:PHHC:005736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-49351-2023,
CRM-41642-2015 IN/And
CRM-A-2050-MA-2015
Date of Decision:16.01.2024
Municipal Council Dhuri ...Appellant
vs.
Satbir Singh ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present : Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate
for the applicant/appellant.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)
CRM-49351-2023
1. The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C
with a prayer to restore the main case i.e CRM-A-2050-MA-2015 (O&M),
which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 17.10.2023.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is
allowed and the main case is restored to its original number and status.
CRM-41642-2015
1. The applicant/appellant has moved the present application under
Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 337 days in filing the
present appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.07.2014, whereby the
respondent was ordered to be acquitted of the charge under Section 172-A of
the Punjab Municipal Act 1911.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the
judgment of acquittal was passed by the Trial Court on 25.07.2014 and after
getting the certified copy, the appeal was filed before the Court of Additional
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005736
-2
Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 29.08.2014 under the bonafide impression that the
appeal is maintainable before the Sessions Court. It transpired that as a matter
of fact, the appeal was maintainable before the Hon'ble High Court and the
appeal was withdrawn on 01.10.2015 and immediately, thereafter the present
appeal was filed on 14.12.2015. He further submits that the delay of 337 days
had occurred in filing the present appeal on account of the aforesaid bonafide
impression and the wrong advise given by the learned counsel in the Court.
3. This Court finds that there are sufficient reasons for condoning the
delay in filing the present appeal before this Court. For the reasons mentioned
the application stands allowed, the delay of 337 days in filing the present appeal
is ordered to be condoned.
Main case
1. The applicant/appellant has filed the present application under
Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C for grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment
of acquittal dated 25.07.2014, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Dhuri, whereby the respondent was ordered to be acquitted of the charge
under Section 172-A of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911. In fact, the
applicant/appellant had filed the complaint under Section 172-A of the Punjab
Municipal Act 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the respondent
with the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dhuri.
2. Facts as alleged by the applicant/appellant are that on 22.11.2010,
in order to encroach upon municipal property, respondent started to raise
construction near the residence of Bhim Sain, Ex President of M.C., Dhuri.
Consequently, applicant/appellant issued notice no.2588/S.O. dated 22.11.2010
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005736
-3
to the respondent which was duly received by the respondent. However, he did
not stop to raise the illegal construction. Another notice dated 29.11.2010 was
issued to the accused which was refused by him so the notice was affixed at his
residence on 02.12.2010. Applicant/appellant alleged that accused has raised
construction illegally in violation of Punjab Municipal Act and respondent is
liable to be punished for the same.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant argued that the
impugned judgment is based on mis-appreciation of facts and law. Learned
counsel further submitted that the appellant had produced sufficient evidence to
prove the ownership of the plot and it was conclusively stated that the
construction was raised by the respondent without any justification. Even no
defence evidence led by the respondent to prove his innocence. Learned
counsel further submitted that on 22.11.2010, respondent started raising
construction on his plot and had also encroached some area which was meant
for public use. Even after issuance of mandatory notice, respondent did not
budge and continued to raise construction. He further contends that the learned
Trial Court had mis-read Section 172-A of the "Act" and the impugned
judgment is based on whims and liable be set aside by this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and
perused the record carefully.
5. From the record, it is evident that the main charge against the
present respondent was that the construction was being raised by the respondent
without getting site plan approved from the applicant/appellant,whereas, the
evidence led by the parties before the Trial Court clearly showed that the
respondent had got the plan approved from the applicant/appellant in 2004,
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005736
-4
however, the construction could not be raised by him as per the approved plan
within a period of 01 year.
6. This Court finds sufficient force in the findings recorded by the
Trial Court that there was no evidence to show that the disputed site was a
public land and it was owned by the applicant/appellant. The
applicant/appellant produced CW-1 Gagandeep Singh, CW-2 Tarsem Lal
Building Clerk and CW-3 Iqbal Mohd. Assistant Engineer, however, from their
testimonies, it could be clearly inferred that the site plan was owned by the
respondent himself. Even CW-1 Gagandeep Singh was the most material
witness and had given answers to the main questions put to him. Even CW-3
Iqbal Mohd. Assistant Engineer clearly admitted in his cross-examination that
except for foundation measuring 16' x 14', the remaining portion of the
building had been constructed as per site plan. In fact, the evidence led by the
prosecution itself proved that the respondent had made no encroachment on the
land owned by the Municipal Committee. Even otherwise, I have gone through
the findings recorded by the Trial Court and find no reasons to interfere with
the same as the impugned judgment does not suffer from any material
irregularity, illegality or perversity. Thus, the prayer for grant of leave to appeal
is declined and the application is ordered to be dismissed.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
16.01.2024 JUDGE
hitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005736
4 of 4
