Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, filed a criminal writ petition challenging the order dated 16.5.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Criminal Revision Application No.1257 of 2010. The Sessions Court had quashed the process issued against the respondents (original accused) for the offence punishable under Section 475A(1)(a) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act). The facts are that the respondents were owners of a building at Malad (West), Mumbai. On 1st June 2010, a Junior Engineer of the Corporation inspected the premises and found the structure in a ruinous condition, likely to fall and dangerous. Consequently, a notice under Section 354 of the MMC Act was issued to the respondents calling upon them to carry out necessary repairs within 30 days from receipt of the notice. The notice was allegedly served on 17.6.2010 and 7.7.2010. On 25th August 2010, the Junior Engineer again inspected and found that the respondents had failed to comply, leading to the filing of a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, who issued process. The respondents filed a revision application before the Sessions Court, which quashed the process on the ground that the complaint did not disclose the date of service of notice and the period of non-compliance. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Sessions Court's order was correct. The court observed that for an offence under Section 475A(1)(a), the prosecution must prove that the notice under Section 354 was served and that the owner failed to comply within 30 days from service. The complaint merely stated that the notice was served on 17.6.2010 and 7.7.2010, but did not specify which date was the effective service. Moreover, the inspection on 25.8.2010 was within 30 days from 7.7.2010, so non-compliance could not be established. Therefore, the process was rightly quashed. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Sessions Court's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Process - Section 482 CrPC - Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Sections 354, 475A(1)(a) - The petitioner challenged the order of the Sessions Court quashing the process issued against the respondents for alleged failure to comply with a notice under Section 354 of the MMC Act. The court held that the prosecution must prove service of notice and non-compliance within 30 days. Since the complaint did not specify the date of service or the period of non-compliance, the process was rightly quashed. (Paras 4-10) B) Municipal Law - Notice under Section 354 - Requirement of Service and Compliance Period - Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Section 354 - The notice under Section 354 requires the owner to carry out repairs within 30 days from service. The complaint must allege that the notice was served and that the owner failed to comply within that period. In the absence of such allegations, the prosecution fails. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the process issued against the respondents for offence under Section 475A(1)(a) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, was liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the notice under Section 354 of the said Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge quashing the process against the respondents.
Law Points
- Strict compliance with notice provisions
- Service of notice must be proved
- Non-compliance within stipulated period essential for prosecution
- Quashing of process when complaint lacks essential ingredients
