Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Amit Surendra Mittal (respondent) under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The case arose from an incident on 27 May 2002 when Assistant Municipal Commissioner Shri. Sawant visited a garage in Santacruz, Mumbai, and found it being used as a beauty parlour without permission. A notice under Section 53(1) was issued on 10 June 2002 to the respondent, directing discontinuation of the change of use within one month. A second inspection on 22 July 2002 revealed non-compliance, leading to a complaint on 29 July 2002. The trial court acquitted the respondent, and the State appealed. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the notice under Section 53(1) was served on the owner of the premises, not on the respondent who was actually using the garage as a beauty parlour. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the respondent was served with the notice, which is a prerequisite for the offence. The court also noted that the respondent was not the owner but a user, and the notice must be served on the person contravening the provision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Section 378 CrPC - State Appeal Against Acquittal - The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State against acquittal under Section 53(1) of MRTP Act, holding that the prosecution failed to prove that the notice under Section 53(1) was served on the respondent-accused, who was the actual user of the garage as a beauty parlour. The notice was served on the owner of the premises, not on the respondent. The court held that the acquittal was proper and no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-10) B) Town Planning - Change of User - Section 53(1) MRTP Act - Notice Requirement - The court held that for an offence under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the notice must be served on the person who is actually using the premises in contravention of the Act. In this case, the notice was served on the owner of the garage, but the respondent was the person running the beauty parlour. The prosecution did not prove that the respondent was served with the notice. Therefore, the essential ingredient of the offence was not established. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act was proper when the notice was served on the owner of the premises and not on the respondent who was the actual user.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent.
Law Points
- Section 53(1) of MRTP Act requires notice to be served on the person contravening the provision
- not merely the owner
- burden of proof lies on prosecution to establish proper service
- acquittal upheld due to lack of evidence of service on accused.
