1 36-REVN-187-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.187 OF 2011 Jayaben Maganlal Chauhan ....Applicant. Versus Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents. Ms Nayana Pardeshi, advocates for the Applicant. Mr. Sandip Patil with Seema Rawade, advocates for the BMC. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : February 11, 2013. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2 Applicant is convicted under Section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 475 A (1)(b) read with Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and is sentenced to suffer S.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one month. Applicant is admittedly tenant in the premises in question. His defence seems to be that the offending structure was there since inception. This Shivgan 2 36-REVN-187-11 contention of the applicant is corroborated by the prosecution evidence in-as-much as P.W.1 admitted that the offending structure is not of recent origin. Be that as it may, immediately after the notice was given, the offending structure was removed by the BMC. In the circumstances, Rule. Hearing expedited. (RANJIT MORE, J.) Shivgan 3 36-REVN-187-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 166 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.187 OF 2011 Jayaben Maganlal Chauhan ....Applicant. Versus Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. R.B. Paranjpe i/by Mr. Vinit Jain, advocates for the Applicant. Mr. Sandip Patil with Seema Rawade, advocates for the BMC. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : February 11, 2013. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2 Applicant is convicted under Section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 475 A (1)(b) read with Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and is sentenced to suffer S.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one month. Shivgan 4 36-REVN-187-11 Applicant has already deposited the aforesaid fine amount in the Trial Court. During the pendency of the case and pendency of the appeal, applicant was on bail. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant has misused this liberty. By the separate order, I have admitted the aforesaid revision of the applicant challenging the conviction. In these circumstances, sentence imposed on the applicant is suspended. Applicant is directed to be released on bail during the pendency of final hearing and disposal of the above revision application on the same terms and conditions as in the trial Court, however, after execution of fresh PR Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-. (RANJIT MORE, J.) Shivgan 5 36-REVN-187-11 Shivgan 6 36-REVN-187-11 Shivgan