TAMAL LAHIRI versus KUMAR P. N. TAGORE

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 739 · Decided: 13-09-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
' . 
•• • 
) 
TAMAL LAHIRI 
v. 
KUMAR P. N. TAGORE 
September 13, 1978 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., R. S. SARKARIA AND 
0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
789 
Bengal Municipal Act (Act XV), 1932 Sections 240(1)(b), 
500(1)(b), 
533, scope of-Lhnitation of 6 nzonths period, how to reckon under s. 533 of 
the Act-Whether 6 months mean.'l 6 caletular n1011ths or 180 days. 
A notice dt. 5-12-67 calling upon the respondent to remove, within 15 days 
of the date of receipt of it, culvert erected without the permission from the 
Municipality by him thereby causing obstruction or encroachment 
over the 
main municipal drain, not having been complied with, the Baranagore Munici~ 
pality through the appellant its I.aw Assistant filed a complaint against the res-
pondent under s. 240(1)(b) read with s. 500(1) (b) of the Bengal Municipal 
Act, 1932. The respondent's objection to its maintainability on the 
plea of 
bar of limitation under s. 533 of the Act was rejected by the trial court, but 
upheld by the High Court in revision. 
~Wowing the appeal by special leave the Court, 
l-IELD : ( 1) The offence charged against the respondent concerned, consists 
not in the erection of an obstruction by him but in his failure to comply with 
the direction lawfully given to him to remove that obstruction that the offence 
must be deemed to have been committed by the respondent, if at all, not on 
the date of the notice· viz. December 5, 1967 nor on any anterior date but on 
the expiry of the period permitted to hint for removing-the obstruction viz. on 
the expiry of the 15 days after the re<:eipt of the notice; and that the expression 
"6 months" v;rhich occurs in s. 533 of the Bengal Municipal Act means 6 
calen<lar months and not 180 days. [743E-G] 
(a) S. 240(1) of the Act confers by its three clauses various powers on the 
Commissioners. Clause (b) on its tme reading empowers the Commissioners 
to issue a notice requiring any person to remove an encroachment which has 
been erected without permission or which remains erected after the expiry of 
the period covered by a perntission granted in that behalf. Though clause (b) 
of s. 240(1) does not expressly provide that the Commissioners may permit 
such time as they think fit for the removal of the encroachment, it is implicit 
in the power conferred by that clause that by ~ proper direction or reqtiisition 
the Commissioners can allow for the removal of the encroachment such time as 
they consider reasonable in the circumstances of the case. [741F-G, 742A-B] 
(b) S. 500(1) (b) of the Act creates a some-what artificial offence which 
does not consist in the, original Act of erecting the obstruction or encroachment 
but in "failing to comply with any direction lawfully given" to a person or "any 
requisition lawfully made upon him". 
By the terms of the very notice, in the 
instant case, which contained the direction or requisition the respondent was at 
liberty to remove the encroachment at any time within 15 days after the receipt 
of the notice. In other words, failure to comply with direction or requisition 
occur for the first time within the meaning of s. 500(l)(b) on the expiry of 15 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
740 
SUPilBME COURT REPORTS 
(1979] 1 s.c.R. 
A 
days after December 5 i.e. to say after the expiry of December 20. Since 'the 
offence under s. 500 (I) (b) for which the respondent is being prosecuted consist• 
of his alleged failure to comply with the particular direction or requisition and 
since such failure occurred for the first time· after December 20, the period or 
limitation prescribed by s. 533 of the Act for instituting the prosecution will 
commence to run on the expiry of 20th December. 
[742B-C, D-E, Fl 
8 
(2) Section 3(27) of the Bengal General Clauses 
Act 
(Act 
1), 1899 
defines "a month" to mean a month reckoned according to the British calendar. 
The expression 6 months, which occurs in s. 533 of the Act must accordingly 
be construed to mean 6 calendar months and not 180 days. The offence being 
alleged to have been committed on the expiry of December 20, 1967 and the 
prosecution having been instituted on June 19, 1958, tbe provisions of s. 533 
I 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
have been fully complied with. [743D·E] 
J 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 69 
Of 1972. 
Appeal 'by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
22-12-70 of the Calcutta High Court in Cr!. Revision No. 697 of 
1969. 
P. K. Chatterjee and Rathin Das for the Appellant. 
K

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