Court No. - 56
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 851 of 1990 Revisionist :- Giriraj Kumar Opposite Party :- State & Avas Vikas Pradhikaran Counsel for Revisionist :- Tripurari Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
List has been revised. Even in the revised call, none is present for revisionist, whereas learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
The order sheet reveals that this criminal revision is of the year 1990 and the same is pending since long, but counsel for revisionist is not appearing to press this revision since so many dates, hence heard learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision is against judgment and order dated 23.04.1990, passed by IXth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1989 and upholding the judgment and order dated 19.06.1989, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, holding the revisionist guilty under Section 26 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and punishing him with fine of Rs.3,000/- only in Criminal Case No.533 of 1989 on the ground that no finding about breach of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and Rules made thereunder has been given by the Magistrate and in appeal too the appellate court failed to appreciate it; the boundary and the correct location of the shop in dispute has not given by the prosecution; no offence was committed by the revisionist, even then sentence has been awarded against him. Hence, this revision.
Aligarh Development Authority through its Secretary filed a complaint under Section 26 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 in the Court of Magistrate against Giriraj Singh for construction of shop against the Rules of the above Act at Anupshahr Road within Police Station Civil Lines, Aligarh. Sajid Hasan, Junior Engineer along with Junior Engineer Breb Masih found above illegal construction at 8.30 A.M. on 26.09.1986. The report Ext.Ka-1 was submitted before Aligarh Development Authority. It was with site map Ext.Ka-2. This construction was of a shop with measurement 10'x20' ft. A notice under Section 26 of the Act was issued as Ext. Ka-3. This was served in person on 11.10.1986. It was exhibited as Ext.Ka-
4. The show cause opportunity was given for explaining about above defiance of the Rules and the construction being made, but no reply of same was filed, hence a complaint Ext.Ka-5 was filed by Development Authority before the Court of Magistrate. The Magistrate took cognizance over it and accused was summoned for trial. Statement of accused was recorded on 29.04.1988. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined three witnesses who proved six documents exhibited as above. One witness was examined in defence. The documentary evidence were filed. Magistrate heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides and passed the judgment with punishment of Rs.3,000/- fine under Section 26 of the Act. The Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1989 was filed before the Court of learned IXth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh. The main contention of the revisionist before appellate court was that the shop in question was not constructed in the year 1986, but it was constructed as such in the year 1965 and it was personally owned by Babu Lal; Giriraj Singh and his brother Sukhpal Singh got it transferred in their favour by a registered sale deed executed by Babu Lal on 07.02.1989, hence no illegal construction against the provisions of Section 26 of the Act was made by the revisionist. Appellate court heard learned counsel for both sides and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 23.04.1990. This revision is against above judgment.
On the basis of testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 it was apparently clear that construction of shop with measurement of 10x6 ft. was made by Giriraj Singh and it was found on spot by PW-1 and PW-3 while the construction was going on. Notice against it was issued, but neither any reply of the same was filed nor anyone is present before this revisional court for pressing the alleged illegality, irregularity or impropriety committed by the appellate court in its judgment, whereas judgment is with sound reason and precedents and based on evidence adduced on record.
In view of the above, this revision merits its dismissal, it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 NS