https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285398 Occupation of municipal land by a khokha without proved permission from the Municipal Board was treated as a breach of the relevant bye-law, and receipts unrelated to the disputed structure did not establish lawful authority; the conviction under the municipal law was therefore restored. The bar of double jeopardy under Article 20 and Section 403 CrPC did not apply because there was no proof of prior prosecution for the same offence on the same facts, and the offence was characterised as continuing, permitting later proceedings for a different period. The complaint was also held competent, as the Executive Officer was empowered under the Municipalities Act to institute prosecutions and make complaints. en-us Thu, 16 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jan 2020 11:11:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285398 Occupation of municipal land by a khokha without proved permission from the Municipal Board was treated as a breach of the relevant bye-law, and receipts unrelated to the disputed structure did not establish lawful authority; the conviction under the municipal law was therefore restored. The bar of double jeopardy under Article 20 and Section 403 CrPC did not apply because there was no proof of prior prosecution for the same offence on the same facts, and the offence was characterised as continuing, permitting later proceedings for a different period. The complaint was also held competent, as the Executive Officer was empowered under the Municipalities Act to institute prosecutions and make complaints. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285398