AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The notices so far as they require, persons having no backyards to their houses to provide latrines in their non-existing backyards are clearly
bad and we dismiss the appeals in which the respondents are owners of houses having no backyards, Crl. Appeal No. 176 of 1918 is also
dismissed, the respondent being dead. It appears that the respondents in the 12 appeals Nos. 158, 164 to 167, 171, 174, 175,177, 181, 182 and
184 of 1918, do own backyards to their houses and could have complied with the notice issued u/s 207 of the District Municipalities Act (Act IV
of 1884) to provide latrines in their several backyards.
We are unable to follow the reasoning of the majority of the Bench that the Municipal Council ought to have called upon the accused to provide
moveable receptacles u/s 217 of the Act before proceeding to take action u/s 264 A. We are also unable to accept the arguments of the
respondent''s learned Vakil that the Municipal Council ought to have constructed the latrines themselves u/s 264(1), before'' prosecuting u/s 264A
for failure to comply with the notice u/s 207. We are unable to find any such duty imposed by the Act on the Council as a necessary condition
precedent to the institution of prosecutions u/s 264 A.
We therefore convict the respondent in these 12 appeals and impose a fine of one rupee on each of them dismissing the other appeals.