SBCRRP569/2010 SBCRRP570/2010 SBCRRP571/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.569/2010 Govind Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor and Another 2. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.570/2010 Shanker Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor and Another 3. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.571/2010 Shanker Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor and Another Date of Order ::: 18.08.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri D.K. Dixit, Counsel for petitioners in all the revision petitions Shri Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor, for the State #### By the Court:- These revision petitions have been filed by two petitioners, namely, Govind Ram Sharma and Shanker Lal Sharma, who were convicted by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, vide its three separate orders dated 25.08.2009, for the offence under Sections 31(1), 32(7), 33(2) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act of 1982') in Case No.15/2008, under Sections 31 (1) and 32(7) of the Act of 1982 in Case No.66/2007 and under Sections 31(1), 32(7) and 33(2) of the SBCRRP569/2010 SBCRRP570/2010 SBCRRP571/2010 // 2 // Act of 1982 in Case No.13/2008; and their appeals filed against the said conviction orders/judgments dated 25.08.2009 were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide its judgment/order dated 08.04.2010. Shri D.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that the provisions of Sections 31, 32 and 37 of the Act of 1982 would be attracted only in such cases where constructions are raised within ten years prior to the date of service of notice. The original construction in the present case was made in the year 1994 whereas the officials of the JDA inspected the site on 22nd June, 2007 i.e. 13 years after the date of original construction. Thus provisions of aforesaid Sections could not be invoked. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused-petitioners had moved a reference case before the JDA Tribunal wherein it was held that since construction has already been raised, the respondent JDA would not take any action against the accused-petitioners without adopting due process of law. No notice was required under Section 32 of the Act by the JDA to be served upon the petitioner. It is submitted that since the offence is punishable only by fine and therefore also the limitation for taking cognizance for such offence would be maximum six months; the complaints SBCRRP569/2010 SBCRRP570/2010 SBCRRP571/2010 // 3 // having been filed belatedly, the same are liable to be set-aside. The provisions of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. have also not been followed, therefore he impugned order may be set aside. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the impugned judgment/order, I find that the fine was imposed on the petitioners after they were held guilty of committing offence under Sections 31(1), 32(7) and 33(2) of the Act of 1982 on the basis of the evidence produced and proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-petitioners raised fresh constructions in plots measuring 30' x 70'. They raised new constructions of four feet height over the rooms. This area was located in Prithvi Raj Nagar Yojna where otherwise also the constructions are prohibited by reason of status- quo order pased by this Court. PW-1 Shrawan B Joseph, PW-2 Damodarlal and PW-3 Rakesh Jain, the prosecution witnesses, fully proved the fact that it was a fresh constructions raised by the petitioners and their contention that they had raised it in 1994 is taken to be disproved because in fact they were not the farmers of that land rather they claimed that they purchased the plots from one Ram Nagar Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti in 1994 and at that time raised construction only of one room. The assertion of the petitioners that the constructions were old one and outside the period SBCRRP569/2010 SBCRRP570/2010 SBCRRP571/2010 // 4 // of limitation, could be accepted, as no evidence has been led in defence. On the contrary the prosecution evidence categorically proved that new constructions were made and for which the prosecution had fully discharged its onus by producing evidence. In totality of the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders which calls for any interference by this court in this revision petition. All the above three revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//