TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies Bengal Municipal Act's limitation period for prosecutions, emphasizes offense in non-compliance with removal order.</h1> <h3>TAMAL LAHIRI Versus KUMAR PN. TAGORE</h3> TAMAL LAHIRI Versus KUMAR PN. TAGORE - 1978 AIR 1811, 1979 (1) SCR 739, 1979 (1) SCC 75 Issues:1. Interpretation of limitation period under section 533 of the Bengal Municipal Act for filing prosecutions.2. Determination of the point at which the offence under section 500(1)(b) of the Act is committed.3. Construction of the term 'six months' in section 533 of the Act.Detailed Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the limitation period prescribed under section 533 of the Bengal Municipal Act for filing prosecutions. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint, contending that since the prosecution was not initiated within six months after the commission of the offence, it was time-barred under section 533 of the Act.2. The second issue pertains to determining when the offence under section 500(1)(b) of the Act is committed. The respondent was alleged to have failed to comply with a direction lawfully given to him to remove an obstruction over the main municipal drain. The Court analyzed that the offence did not consist of erecting the obstruction but rather in the failure to remove it within the stipulated time frame provided in the notice served by the Municipality.3. The final issue involves the construction of the term 'six months' as used in section 533 of the Act. The Court clarified that the term 'six months' should be interpreted as six calendar months and not 180 days, based on the definition provided in the Bengal General Clauses Act. This interpretation was crucial in determining whether the prosecution, filed on June 19, 1968, was instituted within the statutory limitation period following the alleged commission of the offence.In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the offence charged against the respondent was not in erecting the obstruction but in failing to comply with the lawful direction to remove it within the specified time. The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the case to the Magistrate for further proceedings in accordance with the law, emphasizing the correct interpretation of the limitation period and the point at which the offence was deemed to have been committed.
TaxTMI 