High CourtsSingle Bench

Executive Officer, Berhampur Municipality vs Babu Patra

Orissa High Court · Decided on 11 December 2002 · Citation: (2003) 95 CLT 137 : (2003) 24 OCR 297

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.K. Tripathy, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 — Section 264, 266, 385A
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1988
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 290 words

P.K. Tripathy, J.—The order of acquittal u/s 255(1), Cr.P.C. in 3(a) C. C. Case No. 328 of 1986 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Berhampur, as per the impugned judgment dated 13.5.1987, is under challenge.

2.

Respondent faced the said trial for the offence u/s 385-A of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (in short, "the Act"), on the allegation that in contravention of the provision in Section 264 read with Section 266 of the Act he was continuing with construction of a house unauthorisedly in Ward No. 18 of Berhampur Municipality. The defence taken by the respondent was a plea of complete denial with the assertion that his house is 10 years old by the date of prosecution.

3.

To substantiate the accusation, appellant examined two witnesses, viz., Shri G. Tripathy (P. W. No. 1 - Amin of the Municipality) and Shri Y. Mohan Rao (P. W. No. 2 - the Town Surveyor of Berhampur Municipality). Appellant also relied on Exts. 1 to 5, out of which Ext. 2 is said to be the show-cause notice and Ext. 1 is the report of the Amin (P.W. 1).

4.

The trial Court found the evidence tendered by the prosecution to be deficient to prove that a house was being constructed by the respondent in contravention of the aforesaid provision of law constituting the offence u/s 385-A of the Act, inasmuch as both the prosecution witnesses could not state the plot/survey number and there was nothing in their evidence to show or suggest that the respondent was continuing with any construction.

5.

After perusal of the evidence on record, this Court finds no illegality in that order of acquittal and therefore, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merit.