AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
It is not quite necessary to consider whether in the absence of a resolution passed by the Municipal Council the accused could have been
proceeded against u/s 264 of the District Municipalities Act, 1884. The accused was clearly punishable u/s 263 if, as alleged, he erected the fence
in the lane without the license required by the law. The circumstance that two out of the seven Magistrates (who constituted the bench that sat
during part of the trial) did not attend on the day when the accused was convicted by the five Magistrates who were present then does not affect
the legality of the conviction. The cases of Hardwar Sing v. Khega Ojha ILR 20 Cal. 870 and Damri Thakur v. Bhowani Sahoo ILR 23 Cal. 194
are clearly distinguishable, inasmuch as in the present case the Magistrates who decided it had attended throughout the trial. We must, therefore,
set aside the order of the Deputy Magistrate acquitting the accused and direct the Magistrate to rehear the appeal and dispose of it according to
law.