THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.3682 of 2008 Date: 17.03.2011 Between: M/s.Mogul’s Court Building, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Rep.by Sri Basheeruddin Babu Khan, Builder/Owner. .. Petitioner AND 1. State of A.P. rep.by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. The District Fire Officer, Hyderabad. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P. No.3682 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is a building represented by the builder. A complaint was laid against him before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offence under Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Fire Service Act, 1999 (‘the Act’ for short). The petitioner allegedly violated the provisions of Sections 13, 19 and 22 of the Act read with Rules 15 and 26 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Fire and Emergency Operations and Levy of Fee Rules, 2004 (‘the Rules’ for short). 2. There was a fire accident on 02.06.2006 in the third floor of the premises of the petitioner. The premises was under the occupation of the Regional Office of the National Insurance Company. Apparently, there was a short circuit resulting in fire. The Fire Department was informed. With some difficulty, the fire should be extinguished. During the fire fighting operations, the Fire Department noticed that the building was constructed in violation of the provisions of Sections 13, 19 and 22 of the Act. Consequently, the complaint was laid. 3. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel, submitted that the provisions of the Act would not apply to the present case for the reason that the Act came into force on 30.01.2001 after the assent of the President of India and that the construction of the premises was long before. It is his case that the petitioner building was constructed after obtaining the permission of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on 25.09.1979. The construction allegedly was completed in 1981. 4. The Act, as already pointed out, came into force in 2001. Criminal enactments never have ex post facto operation. They are always prospective in their operations. The Acts indeed speak about the future activity only. 5. The petitioner allegedly committed various violations under the Act, which were enumerated in the complaint. The petitioner allegedly violated the provisions of the Multi-Storied Building Regulations, 1981 and thus became liable for punishment under the Act. 6. The provisions of the Act came into force in 2001 while the building was constructed prior to 1981 and perhaps even before the 1981 Regulations. In any event, the primary point is that the second respondent District Fire Officer, Hyderabad, is trying to find fault with the petitioner in 2006 or 2007 about the constructions that the petitioner has made in or before 1981. The petitioner certainly cannot be held punishable under the provisions of the Act, which was enacted in 1999 and which came into force in 2001 for an offence committed in 1981, which was not an offence by then. 7. In the event the construction of the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of the Act, the Rules and other provisions of any other enactment, the concerned Government officials may take action against the petitioner for the demolition of the structure or for effecting modifications and repairs to the building which actions are civil in nature. So far as the complaint against the petitioner is concerned, the penal provision incorporated in 1999/2001 cannot be invoked for an overt act when the act on the part of the petitioner in 1981 or prior to that time was not punishable by the date of the accident. 8. Thus, where the alleged construction was in 1981 or prior to that and where such construction was made punishable through the enactment of 1999, the construction made in 1981 would not make the person responsible for such construction liable for punishment under the 1999 enactment. I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been charge sheeted and complaint could not have been lodged against the petitioner u/s.31 of the Act for the offences u/s.13, 19 and 22 of the Act. The proceedings against the petitioner, consequently, are liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.47 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are quashed. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 17.03.2011 Isn