Skip to content


Hariprasad Govindlal Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Appln. No. 1134 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1956Bom579; 1956CriLJ986
ActsBombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949; ;Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Rules - Rules 3 and 19(1)
AppellantHariprasad Govindlal
RespondentThe State
Appellant AdvocateV.B. Patel, Adv. for D.V. Patel, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovt. Pleader
Excerpt:
- - he has failed to do either. the word 'or' which has been used shows clearly that if the owner allows water to flow he is responsible......system or in the alternative a cesspool. he has failed to do either. in that case even though the applicant does not live upon the premises it is obvious that he had allowed the filthy matter to flow from the building. 4. it is said however that rule 3 had used the words 'owner or occupier'. there is the liability in respect of the allowing sullage water flow from the building upon the owner if he is in occupation and if he is not in occupation upon the occupier. i am not prepared to accept this contention. the word 'or' which has been used shows clearly that if the owner allows water to flow he is responsible. if the occupier allows water to flow he is responsible. the applicant was therefore rightly convicted. rule will be discharged. 5. rule discharged.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is an application for revision from the order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (Municipal) Ahmedabad of an offence under Rule 19 (1) (a) read with Rule 3 (f) of Chapter 14 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 in that he being the owner of a chawl allowed illthy matter to flow from there.

2. The prosecution case was that the applicant is the owner of the chawl and he has not provided with regard to this chawl either any drain or a cesspool for the disposal of the filthy or sullage water emerging from the chawl. In support of this contention the prosecution examined the inspector who deposed that there was no drain or cesspool provided in respect of this chawl. It does not appear that the applicant denied the truth of this allegation nor did he say that the cesspool had been provided by him, All that he said in defence was that it was the tenants who were responsible because it was they who had allowed the sullage water to flow from the building.

3. Now, it is true of course that as the tenants did not allow any sullage water to go out of the building at all the water would not have flown on from the building. But it is not as if there was a single room which had been let by the applicant to a tenant. This is a chawl in which people are living. There must be drainage for water emerging from the building and it was the duty of the owner to make pro-vision for the disposal of this sullage water. I He had to provide a drain connecting it with the municipal drainage system or in the alternative a cesspool. He has failed to do either. In that case even though the applicant does not live upon the premises it is obvious that he had allowed the filthy matter to flow from the building.

4. It is said however that Rule 3 had used the words 'owner or occupier'. There is the liability in respect of the allowing sullage water flow from the building upon the owner if he is in occupation and if he is not in occupation upon the occupier. I am not prepared to accept this contention. The word 'or' which has been used shows clearly that if the owner allows water to flow he is responsible. If the occupier allows water to flow he is responsible. The applicant was therefore rightly convicted. Rule will be discharged.

5. Rule discharged.


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