Skip to content


Sital Parshad Vs. the Municipal Board of Cawnpore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914All409; 25Ind.Cas.323
AppellantSital Parshad
RespondentThe Municipal Board of Cawnpore
Excerpt:
u.p. municipalities act (i of 1900), section 147 - board's order disobeyed--conviction--disobedience persisted in--second trial--correctness of board's order, whether can be challenged at second trial. - .....fined rs. 20 at the rate of rs. 2 for each day that elapsed since the original conviction. at the second trial he wished to challenge the correctness of the first conviction by showing that the board's notice was illegal and so forth, the magistrate refused to allow this to be done and, in my opinion, the view taken by the magistrate is correct. before the institution of the second, prosecution the applicant challenged the correctness of the first conviction by means of applications to the district magistrate and to this court, but his applications were thrown out. it seems to me impossible to hold that after a conviction, under section 147 the person convicted may challenge the correctness of that conviction as often as he is prosecuted for continued disobedience of the order of the.....
Judgment:

Chamier, J.

1. The applicant was ordered by the Municipal Board of Cawnpore to pull down a chajja which was alleged to be in a ruinous and dangerous condition. On his disobeying the order he was prosecuted under Section 147 of the Municipalities. Act and was fined Rs. 5. As he persisted in disobeying the Board's order he has been prosecuted again and he has been fined Rs. 20 at the rate of Rs. 2 for each day that elapsed since the original conviction. At the second trial he wished to challenge the correctness of the first conviction by showing that the Board's notice was illegal and so forth, The Magistrate refused to allow this to be done and, in my opinion, the view taken by the Magistrate is correct. Before the institution of the second, prosecution the applicant challenged the correctness of the first conviction by means of applications to the District Magistrate and to this Court, but his applications were thrown out. It seems to me impossible to hold that after a conviction, under Section 147 the person convicted may challenge the correctness of that conviction as often as he is prosecuted for continued disobedience of the order of the Board. The correctness of the first conviction cannot now be challenged.

2. This application for revision is dismissed.


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