Skip to content


Queen Empress Vs. Gujria - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR9Bom568
AppellantQueen Empress
RespondentGujria
Excerpt:
municipal (bombey) act vi of 1873, sections 33 and 74 - 'external alteration'--opening of a new doorway in building without notice to municipality. - - but as the act complained of in this case is not alleged to have caused any inconvenience to anybody, we reduce the sentence to the nominal fine of one anna only.nanabhai haridas, j.1. the district magistrate to be informed that the opening of a new external door is an external alteration of the building in which the door is opened, and that such an act done without the notice to the municipality, contemplated by section 33 of bombay act vi of 1873, is an offence punishable under section 74 of that act; but as the act complained of in this case is not alleged to have caused any inconvenience to anybody, we reduce the sentence to the nominal fine of one anna only. the difference between the fine originally levied and the induced fine to be repaid to the accused.
Judgment:

Nanabhai Haridas, J.

1. The District Magistrate to be informed that the opening of a new external door is an external alteration of the building in which the door is opened, and that such an act done without the notice to the municipality, contemplated by Section 33 of Bombay Act VI of 1873, is an offence punishable under Section 74 of that Act; but as the act complained of in this case is not alleged to have caused any inconvenience to anybody, we reduce the sentence to the nominal fine of one anna only. The difference between the fine originally levied and the induced fine to be repaid to the accused.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //