LexNANI GOPAL BISWAS versus THE MUNICIPALITY OF HOWRAH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958] 1957 out that the incidence of the offence of dacoity has Sarjug Roi gone up to such an extent that in proved cases of seri- onti Others ous dacoity, like the one in hand, deterrent punish. T'ie s101ev~f Bihar ment is called for. The High Court was, therefore, Sinha J. justified in imposing the sentence of 10 years' rigor- ous imprisonment. In view of the circumstances dis- closed in the case, as indicated above, it cannot be asserted that the sentence as enhanced by the High Court is excessive. The appeal is, accordingly, dis- missed. 1957 October 29. Appeal dismissed. NANI GOPAL BISWAS V. THE MUNICIPALITY OF HOWRAH (B. P. SINHA and VIVIAN BosE, JJ.) Municipal Law-Encroachment caused by compound wall-Structure not part of main building-Notice to i·e- move encroachment headed by wrong provision of the Municipal Act-Conviction under different section-Leg'l- lity-Calcutta Municip1tl Act, 1923 (Bengal III of 1923), ss. 299, 300, 488(1) (c). The appellant was convicted by the Municipal Magis- trate under s. 488, read with s. 299, of the Calcutta Munici- pal Act, 1923, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75, for failure to carry out within the specified time the terms of a notice served on him under s. 299 of the Act to remove the encroachment caused by a compound wall upon the road- side land of the Municipality. Since the offending structure was a compound wall and not something which was part and parcel of the main building, the offence comes under s. 300 and not s. 299, read with s. 488 of the Act. The High Court, in revision, found that the accused was fully aware of the nature of the accusation against him and that there was no prejudice caused to him by the wrong mention of s. 299 in the notice in place of s. 300. It accordingly altered the conviction into one under s. 488, read with s. 300, and reduced the amount of fine to Rs. 50 as required by the sec- tion. On appeal to the Supreme Court it was contended for the appellant that the conviction was bad because (1) the notice having been headed as under s. 299 of the Act, the conviction under s. 300 was illegal, (2) the requisition had not been lawfully made within the meaning of s. 488(1) (c), and (3) there was substantial prejudice to the appellant inasmuch as if the conviction were under s. W9 and not s. \ S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 775 300, read with s. 488, he might have bt:en entitled to claim 19S7 compensation : N'1ni Gopal Biswas Held, that the effective part of the notice made it clear The M;~icipaliry that the requisition, which was to remove the encroachment of Howrah caused by the compound wall, was lawfully made, that the · alteration of the conviction under s. 299 to one under s. 300 would not make it illegal and that, on the facts, there was no prejudice;- Begu v. The King-Emperor, L.R. 52 I.A. 191, relied on. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appea~ No. 60 of 1955. Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 2nd February, 1955, of the Calcutta High Court i11 Criminal Revision No. 1113 of 1954, against the judg~ ment and order dated the 14th November, 1953, of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Howrah in Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 1953, arising .out of the judgment and order dated· the 8th September, 1953, of the M\lllicipal Magistrate, Second Class, Howrah, in Case No. 1407C/1952. Sukumar Ghose, for the appellant. B. Sen and P. K. Ghosh (for P. K. Rose), for the respondent 1957. October 29. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J.-This appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the Calcutta High Court under Art. 134 (1 )( c) of the Constitution, is directed against the judgment and order of a Single Judge of that Court in its criminal revisional jurisdiction, convicting the appellant under s. 488/300 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act), and sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 50, in substitution of the order of conviction under s. 488/ 299 of the Act, of a fine of Rs. 75, passed by the lower courts. The facts found by the courts below which are necessary to be stated for the purpose of this appeal, are as follows : The appellant who is the owner of the premises No. 10/3, Swarnamoyee Road, Howrah, encroached upon an area of 57'X3' of the road-side land of the Howrah Municipality to which the provi- Sinha J. 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958] !!
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.