Complaint u/s 184 barred.

The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal against acquittal is whether the prosecution of the respondent for offences under sections 184 and 185 and section 336 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, is barred by limitation.

2. The following facts which are not disputed become material. The respondent owns agricultural land in S. No. 219 of 1981 Rayadurg Municipality. He sold a site measuring 49 ½ feet x 60 feet situated in the middle of that survey number on 4th February, 1981 under a registered document in favour of one Lakshmidevamma, The petitioner-municipality came to know about these alienations on information Exhibit P-1 furnished to it by the Sub Registrar. Rayadurg. P.W. 1 Revenue Inspector working in that Municipality visited the area and found that Lakshmidevamma erected a hut. The Municipality issued the notice Exhibit P-2 dated 8th May, 1931 to the respondent, informing him that he has contravened sections 184 and185 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act and called upon him to submit an application for sanction of a lay out within 7 days. The respondent sent the belated reply under Exhibit A-3 dated 4th February, 1982 expressing his willingness to form a lay out and the roads and that as nobody was readily available for preparing the necessary blue points, he may be granted 40 days time. As no such lay out was applied for the 1st respondent, the charge-sheet dated 20th September, 1981, was filed into Court on 22nd September, 1981. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent being of the view that it is barred by limitation under section 366 of the Act. In support of that conclusion he relied on the decision in Madurai Municipality v. Abdul Razak Saheb Madurai Municipality v. Abdul Razak Saheb (1962) 1 MLJ. 47, which considered an analogous provision in section 347 of the Madras District Municipalities Ac.

3. In support of the appeal, Mr. Venkat Reddi the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the said decision on facts is distinguishable and that to cases of this type, the proviso to section 336 is applicable and that even otherwise, this is a fit case where the Magistrate ought, in exercise of the powers under section 366 of the Municipalities Act, to have taken cognizance of the offence which is brought to his notice and should have convicted the respondent Mr. Bali Reddy learned Counsel for the respondent supported the acquittal and placed reliance on Palaniappan v. Commissioner of Salem Municipality Palaniappan v. Commissioner of Salem Municipality (1966) MLJ. (Crl.) 595 : (1977) 2 An.W.R. 167; (1977) 1 A.P.L.J. 120 : (1977) MLJ. (Crl.) 372; Tripurasundari v. Vijayawada Municipality Tripurasundari v. Vijayawada Municipality (1982) 1 A.P.L.J. 445 and Surya Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh Crl.R.C. No. 278 of 1979 dated 9th October, 1980.

4. Section 184 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Ac) provides for the owner's obligation to make a lay out and to form a street or road when disposing of lands as building sites. The section requires the owner of any agricultural land who intends to sell such land for building purposes to pay the council some conversion fee It obligates on the owner of that land to make a layout and form a street or road giving access to sites and connecting them with an existing public or privated street except in the cases where the site abuts on an existing public or private street. It prohibits the owner from selling any portion of his land unless he complied with the condition of his land unless he complied with the conditions aforesaid. Section 185 of the Act provides for the making of a layout and forming of new private street or road. Section 336 of the Act makes general provision regarding penalties Contraventions of sections 184 and185 are also punishable with the penalties mentioned therein. Section 366 provides for three months period of limitation for contraventions of any provision of the Act. At the same time it empowers Magistrates to