I.S. ISRANI, J.—This S.B. Leave Application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. of 1973 against the judgment and order of the learned Special Court Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.D.A. Act cases, Jaipur, dated 29.8.85 in Cr. Case No. 323/84, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent from the charge for offence under Section 32(7) and section 33(2) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act (herein after called the Act). The accused respondent was charged for offence under Section 31(1), 32(7) and 33(2) of the Act for raising unauthorised construction/development and using the land otherwise than in conformity with the plan inspite of the notice given to him by the complainant J.D.A. and not stopping the unauthorised construction. The trial court found him guilty and convicted the accused respondent for offence under section 31(1) of the Act for raising/making illegal unauthorised construction and sentenced him to fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, but acquitted him u/s 32 (7) and sec. 33(2) of the Act.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant J.D.A. & learned counsel for the non-petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gupta has stressed that the learned trial court has erred in holding that notice Ex. P.6 regarding removal of illegal construction was not duly served upon the accused respondent. The contention of the learned counsel is that the service of the notice effected on Ghanshyam Gupta younger brother of the accused respondent, was sufficient as according to the provisions of Section 86 (c) (si) of the Act if such person can not be found, the notice can be affixed on some conspicuous part of his last known place of residence or business, or is given or tendered to some adult member of his family or is affixed on some conspicuous part of the land or building to which it relates.

3. It is therefore, contended that the service of the notice effected on brother of the respondent is quite sufficient. It has been further contended that the offence under Section 33(2) of the Act is continuing offence and therefore, the provisions of limitation provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. do not apply to the present case.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar on the other hand has supported the judgment of the lower court and has stressed that it is almost impossible to get the map of construction approved from the J.D.A. and the citizens of Jaipur are thus forced to carry on construction unauthorised. At first the officers of the J.D.A. happily allow the citizens to raise the construction without sanction of necessary plans/map and when the construction is on the verge of completion, notice of unauthorised construction is given and criminal proceedings are initiated against the helpless citizens which causes extreme harassment and financial loss to them. In this way the J.D.A. has become one of the biggest litigating agencies in Jaipur. He contended that the language of sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of Section 86 of the J.D.A. Act clearly shows that a proper effort in the first instance has to be made to find out the person against whom the notice has been issued and if it is not possible to trace him, then alone other methods of service mentioned in the section can be adopted. In this case the non-petitioner is a Government Servant and could have been easily served personally, which shows that no effort whatsoever was made to serve the non-petitioner himself. Therefore, it can not be said that the J.D.A. was not able to find out the non-petitioner for serving the notice. Begar-ding the provision of limitation that may be applicable to the offence committed under Section 33(2) of the Act. it has been contended that since criminal prosecution has been launched against the respondent, provisions of section 468 Cr.P.C are fully applicable to the matter and the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent of the charges

Click Here to Read the rest of this document