* 1 * Revn.Appln.580.2010 15.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 580 OF 2010 Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai .... Applicant V/S. Mr. Sadikali A. Suleman and Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Seema Rawale h/f. Mr. V.K. Khatu., Advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.R. Iyengar h/f. Mr. K.A. Suleman, Advocate for the respondent. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 15th July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This Revision Application challenges the correctness and legality of the order dated 15th October, 2010 passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai allowing the appeal preferred by respondents no.1 and 2 and reducing the fine imposed upon them from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. 2. The applicant filed a complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Dadar (Shindewadi), Mumbai being C.C No. 4103844/SS/07 for the offence punishable under Section 390 read with Section 471 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred * 2 * Revn.Appln.580.2010 15.7.2011 to as the MMC Act”) Act, 1988. Respondents no.1 and 2 apparently “ run a bakery in the name of M/s. Pukar Bakery from 13th Lane, Near Mela Hotel, Kamathipura, Mumbai-400 008. The complaint alleges that the respondents have been doing the work of atta mixing by using mechanical power electrical motor of 1 H.P. without prior written permission of the Corporation. On receipt of this summons, both the respondents appeared in the Court and admitted that they are mixing atta with mechanical power (Electric Motor) of aggregate 1 H.P. with five workers without previous written permission from the Municipal Corporation. On this plea of guilt, the respondents were convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and sentenced with maximum fine of Rs.50,000/-. This quantum of the fine was questioned by the respondents by preferring appeal in the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge observes at paragraph-6 as follows :- 6. “ On going through the record, it is seen that the application produced by the complainant requesting for the issuance of process is in cyclostyled form. Section 390 of the Act basically is in respect of establishment of new factory without permission of the Commissioner. Here the position is different. It is not at all the case of the prosecution that the appellants/accused established new factory without permission of the Commissioner or any workshop or any workplace as per the requirement of said Section. The appellants were found only using mechanical power (electric motor) 1 H.P. for the purposes of atta mixing machinery.” * 3 * Revn.Appln.580.2010 15.7.2011 In other words, it has been observed by the learned Judge that prosecution by the applicant under Section 390 of the MMC Act was not correct. This position is not disputed by the applicant. In these facts, the learned Magistrate ought not to have imposed the maximum punishment that can be awarded under Section 390 of the MMC Act. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has not exercised his discretion properly and that having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, he ought to have imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- each. There is no merit in the application. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]