Calcutta High Court upholds conviction of Biplab Saha, Shukla Das for illegal G+3 building

Kolkata, September 3, 2026 – The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by developer Biplab Saha and property owner Shukla Das, upholding their conviction under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act for constructing an unauthorised G+3 building in a congested lane.

Justice Uday Kumar observed that unauthorised construction in a crowded metropolis is not merely a civil infraction but a direct assault on public safety, and that criminal law must step in when municipal sanctions are ignored.

Background of the Case

The prosecution originated from a complaint lodged on February 12, 2017 by Jayanta Paul, Assistant Engineer of the KMC Building Department. The complaint alleged that at premises 26/D, Dr Panchanan Mitra Lane, the petitioners had raised a four‑storeyed (G+3) building despite a sanctioned plan permitting construction only up to G+1, due to the narrow access passage.

The unauthorised vertical expansion was said to pose risks of structural collapse, disruption to water supply, drainage, sewerage and road traffic, and fire hazards. After investigation, a charge was framed under Section 401A KMC Act. The trial court convicted both accused and sentenced them to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000 each. On appeal, the City Sessions Court modified the sentences: Saha was given three months' simple imprisonment plus a ₹50,000 fine, while Das received imprisonment till the rising of the court plus a similar fine.

Court Rejects Procedural Objections

The petitioners argued that the prosecution was void ab initio because the complaint was not lodged by the Municipal Commissioner or a person authorised under Section 620 KMC Act. They also contended that stop‑work notices were not properly served.

Justice Uday Kumar held that technical defects in administrative channelisation cannot vitiate a prosecution that has undergone a full‑trial where substantive guilt is established. Citing the ruling in Mahendra Baid v. State of West Bengal (which dealt with quashing at the threshold for a minor alteration), the court distinguished the present case, noting that here a massive, flagrant unauthorised construction had been proved through robust ocular and documentary evidence.

“Procedural technicalities at the threshold do not survive a completed trial where foundational guilt is thoroughly proved,” the court stated.

Evidence Established Likelihood of Hazard

The High Court noted that the prosecution examined seven witnesses and produced sixteen exhibits, including the sanctioned plan (Exhibit 2) and the Building Rule Infringement Statement (Exhibit 8). The infringement statement recorded gross deviations in front, side and rear open spaces, FAR, ground coverage, and height, exceeding the permissible 6.7 metres.

The petitioners contended that no independent forensic evidence—such as soil tests or structural stability reports—had been produced to prove actual danger to human life or public infrastructure.

Rejecting this argument, Justice Uday Kumar emphasised that Section 401A uses the disjunctive expression “endangers or is likely to endanger ”. He held that when an unauthorised multi‑storey structure is erected in a congested lane against a restricted G+1 limit, the likelihood of hazard is a statutory presumption grounded in objective physical reality.

“Actual structural collapse or post‑facto forensic proof is not a mandatory prerequisite once illegal, unmonitored vertical expansion is proved from its inception,” the court observed.

Sentencing Upheld as Proportional

The appellate court had already bifurcated culpability, treating the developer as a commercial profit‑seeker deserving stricter deterrence, while showing leniency to the owner based on her age and passive role. The High Court found no ground to interfere, noting that the sentencing accurately balanced deterrence and correction.

Final Decision

The criminal revision was dismissed. The court held that the concurrent findings of guilt returned by the trial and appellate courts were sound and free from perversity. No costs were imposed, and interim orders stood vacated.

Key Quotation from the Judgment:

“Unauthorized and unlawful construction in a congested urban metropolis like Kolkata is not merely a civil infraction of municipal rules; it is a direct assault on public safety, civic infrastructure, and the collective right of citizens to live in a safe and regulated environment.”