Skip to content


Smt. Bhagia Vs. Chittagong Municipality - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Cal608
AppellantSmt. Bhagia
RespondentChittagong Municipality
Excerpt:
- .....the petitioner should not be quashed. the petitioner is a sweeper woman who was serving under the municipal commissioners of chittagong. she left chittagong on the 11th and reached calcutta on 13th march 1938. she took service as a sweeper under the calcutta corporation on 1st april and has been so working ever since. she has now been prosecuted for an offence under section 71, bengal municipal act. the complaint was made on 21st february 1939. a warrant was issued for her arrest and she then obtained this rule. the ground upon which this rule was pressed is that the prosecution is barred by limitation. it is not now contended that she may not be guilty of an offence under the substantive section. in showing cause mr. choudhury took two points. first of all he contended that mere.....
Judgment:

Henderson, J.

1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Chittagong to show cause why certain proceedings pending against the petitioner should not be quashed. The petitioner is a sweeper woman who was serving under the Municipal Commissioners of Chittagong. She left Chittagong on the 11th and reached Calcutta on 13th March 1938. She took service as a sweeper under the Calcutta Corporation on 1st April and has been so working ever since. She has now been prosecuted for an offence under Section 71, Bengal Municipal Act. The complaint was made on 21st February 1939. A warrant was issued for her arrest and she then obtained this rule. The ground upon which this rule was pressed is that the prosecution is barred by limitation. It is not now contended that she may not be guilty of an offence under the substantive Section. In showing cause Mr. Choudhury took two points. First of all he contended that mere failure to attend is not an offence; for example, such failure might be due to illness. The result is that there is nothing to show on what date the offence was actually committed. I am bound to say that this is a rather startling argument to hear on behalf of the prosecution. It is the business of the prosecution to establish on what date the offence alleged was committed. Everything in the petition of complaint has been kept delightfully vague. It is, however, stated in the, affidavit that the petitioners took up employment under the Corporation of Calcutta on 1st April. There is no counteraffidavit. There can be no doubt at all that when she did that, she withdrew from her duties as a servant under the Commissioners of Chittagong. The second point argued was that the offence is a continuing one. In our opinion it is not. As soon as she withdrew from her service, under the Commissioners of Chittagong, the offence was complete. She does not go on committing it merely by working under some other municipal body. As the complaint was made more than six months after the commission of the offence, it is invalid. The Rule is accordingly made absolute and we direct that the proceedings now pending against the petitioner be quashed. The petitioner will be discharged from her bail.

Latifur Rahman, J.

2. I agree.


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