Dr. Ram Sarup Agnihotri vs The State of Haryana

S.D. Bajaj, J.—Shri Ram Partap, Water Superintendent of Municipal Committee, Dabwali in Sirsa district of Haryana State reported to the Adminitrator of the Municipal Committee as follows : -

"The site was inspected with Shri Dharam Chand and Murli Baldar and found that Dr. Ram Swarup Agnihotri s/o Baru Ram has taken the water connection illegally without prior sanction of the water connection illegally without prior sanction of the Municipal Committee as detailed. The connection size 1/4" was sanctioned of the applicant by the committee - which is entered in W-1 register at Page No. 64 and St. No. 334 when the Dr. Agnihotri have taken the water connection 4 Nos. of large size i.e. 2 nos 3/4" die and 2 Nos. of 1/2" die at site which are against the water supply by law. The action may be taken against the defaulter as per submitted for further orders and necessary action please.

Sd/- Ram Partap."

Administrator in turn wrote to the S. H. O. Police Station, Dabwali vide his letter No. 1331/MCD dated 25th August, 1987 Form the Administrator Municipality Mandi Dabwah to the Station House Officer, Police Station Dabwali M.C. No. 1331/MCD/dated nil Mandi Dabwali No. 25th August, 1987 Subject registration of the case of theft. It is reported that Dr. Fans Swarup Agrihoiri S/o Sh. Barn Ram of Mandi Dabwali has taken illegal connection .from Municipal Water main as per report of Sh. Ram Partap Water Works Superintendent attached in original drawing of water from Municipal main without sanction is theft. Therefore, case may be registered against faun and action taken in accordance with law original report of water Superintendent. Sd/- Administrator Municipality Mandi Dabwali 25 8 S7 " On its basis DDR No. 21 was recorded against the petitioner in Police Station, Dabwali at 6.15 P.M. on 26th August, 1987; which was thereafter converted into First Information Report No. 108 of the same date. Aft-r investigation Criminal Case No. 439/1 was instituted before the learned trial court on 12th November, 1987 The petitioner was accused of theft and mischief therein. Charge was framed against the petitioner on 25th January, 1988. The petitioner, however, pleaded ''not guilty'' there to.

Criminal Misc No. 9334-M of 1990 has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the First Information Report and proceedings initiated against him on its basis before the learned trial Court on the grounds that the proceedings are the outcome of political vendetta, that the assertions made in the First Information Report do not disclose ''he commission of any offence by him; much less offences of theft and mischief of which the petitioner has been accused of and that the special'' jurisdiction envisaged in the Municipal Act excludes the general jurisdiction vested in the police under the Indian Penal Code and that the proceedings initiated by the Administrator of the Municipal Committee, Dabwali. against the petitioner are obviously an abuse of the process of the Court.

I have heard Shri S. S. Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner, Shri Surinder Lamba, Advocate for the State and have carefully gone through the relevant record.

4 The relevant legal provisions envisaged in Haryana Municipal Act 1973 dealing with situation like the present one read :-

"141. Connection with main not to be made without permission of committee -(1) No person shall without the permission of the committee, at any time make or cause to be made, any connection or communication with any cable, wire, pipe for rule drain, sewer or channel constructed or maintained by or vested in the committee, for any purpose whatsoever.

(2) Any person acting in contravention of the terms of sub-section (1) shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than twenty five rupees and more than two hundred rupees.

Authority for prosecution.-Unless otherwise expressly provided, no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rule or any bye-law except on the complaint of, or upon information received from the committee or its Executive Officer or some person authorised by the committee or by the Executive Officer in this behalf.

Explanation :-The committee or its Executive Officer may authorise any person and shall be deemed to have authorised any person appointed to this end by the State Government to make complaints or give information, without previous reference to the committee, either generally in regard to all offences against this Act and the rules or bye laws, or particularly in regard only to specified offences or offences of a specified class. The person authorised may be authorised by office, if he is President, Vice President, Health Officer or Secretary of the committee, or officer to-charge of a police station; in other cases the authority must be personal. The authority must in all cases be in writing, and may at any time be cancelled by the committee.

Power to compound offences-

(1) Except as otherwise provided under any other provision of this Act, the committee or 4he Executive Officer or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may accept from person against whom a reasonable suspicion exist* that he has committed an offence against this Act or any rule or bye-law, a sum of money not less than five rupees by way �f com- position, for such offence.

(2) On payment of such sum of money the suspected person if in custody shall be discharged, and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in regard to the offence or alleged offence so compounded for.

(3) Sums paid by way of composition under this section shall be credited to the municipal fund."

The legal position which emerges from their cumulative reading is that the Municipal Committee could proceed against the petitioner under sub-section (2) of Section 141 of the Act in terms of the procedure envisaged in Section 243 of the Act. Assumption of jurisdiction by the police as also by the learned trial Court is contrary to the jurisdiction envisaged in the special enactment. Special jurisdiction envisaged in the Haryana Municipal Act excludes the general self assumed jurisdiction under the Indian Penal Code. Imputations of theft and mischief to the petitioner in respect of the offence envisaged in Section 141 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 is thus wholly without basis and consequently groundless.

In result Criminal Misc. No. 933!-Mof 1990 succeeds and is allowed. First Information Report No. 108 dated 26th August, 1987 and the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner on its basis before the learned trial court are both quashed.

It is, however, made clear that any observation made above, would not prejudice the right of the Municipal Committee, Dabwali, to prosecute the petitioner for violation of Section 141 (2) of the Act in accordance with the procedure envisaged in Section 243 of the right of the petitioner to approach the Municipal Committee for compounding the alleged violations in terms of Section 244 of the Act ibid.