JUDGMENT - Bhagwati, J.

[1] These are eight criminal appeals against the orders passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate 8th Court, Girgaum, Bom. bay, acquitting the accused in each case. The eight accused were charged with having committed offences punishable under Section 471. City of Bom. bay Municipal Act, III [3] of 1888, in so fat as they failed to afford to the owner of the premises facilities as ordered by the Chief Judge of The Court of Small Causes for enabling the landlord to comply with municipal requisitions under Section 354 of the Act and thereby contravened Section 507 (3) of the Act. The eight accused were the tenants of The owner of she building and the Municipality had issued to the landlord a requisition under Section 354 of the Act to remove the structures etc., which were in ruins or likely to fall. The tenants apparently did not hand over possession of the premises to the landlord, with the result that the landlord was enable to comply with the requisition of the Municipality. He, therefore, approached the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes for the requisite order under Section 507 of the Act and the Chief Judge made an order on 16 3 1960, ordering each of the accused to hand over to the landlord vacant possession of the premises on or before 16 4-1950 This again the tenants would not do, with the result that the tenants were guilty of having contravened the orders under Section 507 (9) of the Act. This default on the part of she tenants was taken by the Municipality to be a continuing offence, and in so far as on 3-7-1950, and thereafter the default continued, the Municipality took 3-7-1950, as the date of the commission of the offence and filed the complaints against each of the accused under Section 471 of the Act in the terms noted above. The learned Presidency Ma- gistrate before whom all these eight cases came for heading was of the opinion that the prosecutions were barred under Section 514 (c) of the Act which lays down that :

No person shall be liable to punishment for any offence made punishable by this Act, unless complaint of such offence is made before a Presidency Magistrate within the time hereinafter prescribed in that behalf, namely :--

(c) if the offence be against any otter provision of this Act, within three months next after the commission of such offences."

He was of the opinion that the date given by the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes to vacate was 16-4-1950, and the prosecutions were barred, having been tiled more than three months after the commission of the offence, the date of the commission, according to him, being 16-4-1950. He rejected the plea which was urged before him by the learned Advocate for the Municipality that the offences committed by the accused were continuing offences, that therefore the period of limitation did not commence from 16-4-1950, and that the offence was just as well committed on 3-7-1950, as on any other date, and therefore the prosecutions which were hunched on 19-9-1950, were well within time. Accepting the plea of the learned Advocate for the defence, he, therefore, acquitted the accused in each Case. These criminal appeals have been filed by the Government of Bombay against these orders of acquittal.

[2] The point which arises before us is covered by the decision of Rajadhyabsha and Dixit JJ, in State v. Babu Gulam, Mohamed, cri Rovn. Apln, NO. 114 of 1951. The case there was, so far as the point of limitation was concerned, on all fours, with the case before us, In that case a requisition had been made by the Municipality on the landlord and on an application made by the land, lord to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes an order had been made on 14-8-1950, directing the applicant and the other tenants to afford all reasonable facilities to the owner of the premises for complying with the requisition contained in the Municipal notice and 21-8-1950, was fixed as the date within which the tenants had to vacate in order to en

Click Here to Read the rest of this document