ATTIQ-UR-REHMAN versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 29-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

_t 
A TTIQ-UR-REHMAN 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 29, 1996 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957: Sections 332, 461, 466 (a), 
467, 469 and 470. 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13 and 14. C 
Municipal Corporation Act-Offences undei-Metropolitan Magistrate 
-Power to take congnisance and try offences under Delhi Municipal Corpora-
tion Act in the absence of appointment of a Municipal Magistrate-Complaint 
against appellant for unauthorised construction-Suit filed by appellant D 
restraining respondent-Corporation from demolishing the unauthorised con-
struction decreed by Trial Court-Thereafter criminal complaint lodged 
against the appellant under sections 332 and 461 of the Delhi Municipal 
Corporation Act-At the relevant time no Municipal Magistrate had been 
appointed in accordance with the provision of Section 469 of the Act-There-
fore complaint filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-No notification E 
issued conferring on latter powers of Municipal Magistrate-Applications 
moved by appellant for stay of criminal proceedings during pendency of civil 
suit as well as that Metropolitan Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try him 
rejected-Criminal revision preferred by appellant-Summary rejection by 
High Court-Appeal-Held-Jn the absence of courts of special jurisdiction F 
i.e. Municipal Magistrates, to be apopointed under Section 469 of the Act, a 
Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case 
may be, has the jurisdiction and powers to try the offences under the Act in 
accordance with the procedure envisaged by Section 467 of the Act and in 
accordance with the limitation the time prescribed for initiation of the 
criminal proceedings under Section 471 of the Act-Where, no court of a G 
Municipal Magistrate has been constituted under Section 469 of the Act and 
no Notification has also been issued conferring the powers of a Municipal 
Magistrate on a particular Judicial Magisrate of the First Class or a 
Metropolitan Magisrate, as the case may be, the jurisdiction of an ordinary 
criminal court to take cognisance of the offences committed under the Act, H 
19 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] j S.C.R. 
A rules, regulations or bye-laws made thereunder is exerciseable by the courts of 
general jurisdiction established to try offences under the Indian Penal Code 
as well as the offences under any other law-The Metropolitan Magistrate 
committed no effor in taking cognizance of the complaint. 
Criminal Courts--Bar of jurisdiction to try offences under the Delhi 
B Municipal C01poration Act-The Government has an obligation under Sec-
tion 469 of the Act to appoint Municipal Magistrate for trial of offences under 
the Act, rules, regulations or bye-laws made thereundei-Govemment has the 
discretion to appoint one or more Municipal Magistrates--But the Govern-
ment is not relieved of its obligation to appoint Municipal Magistrates-Once 
C such Municipal Magistrates are appointed, they alone have the jurisdiction to 
try offences under the Act-The bar under Section 470 of the Act becomes 
operative only when a Municipal Magistrate has been appointed for trial of 
offences under the Act. 
Exclusion of jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction can be 
D brought about only by setting up of a court of limited jurisdiction in respect 
of the limited field provided that the vesting and the exercise of that limited 
jurisdiction is clear and operative-Where there is no valid machinery for the 
exercise of jurisdiction in a specific case, the exercise of jurisdiction by the 
Judicial Magistrates or the Metropolitan Magistrates, as the case may, is not 
E excluded. 
F 
G 
Criminal revision-Summary dismissal by High Court-Duty of High 
Court to give reasons. 
Maxim "lex non cojit ad impossibillia''-Meaning and applicability of 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
281of1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.91 of the Delhi High Court 
in Cr!. R. No. 126 of 1991. 
Shri Narain, Sandeep Narain and Yeshwant Mathur for the Appel-
~ 
T 
R.K. Maheshwari for the Respondents. 
H 
The Order of the Court was delivered : 
ATTIO-UR-REHMANv. M.C.D. 
21 
Special leave granted. 
The only question involved in this case is whether in the absence of 
the appointment of a Municipal Magistrate, a Metropolitan Magisrate can 
take cognizance and try an accused for commission of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.