:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2561 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2561 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2561 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 The Karad Municipal Council through its Chief Officer ...Applicant. v. 1. Iqubal Usman Memon 2. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. Mr.N.J.Patil , adv. for the Applicant. Mr.A.N.Mulla , adv. for the Respondent No.1. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: R.V.More,J. R.V.More,J. R.V.More,J. DATE: 7th January, 2009. DATE: 7th January, 2009. DATE: 7th January, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Patil the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Mulla the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. 2. This Criminal application is taken out for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal under Section 52 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966. It is the case of the applicant/Municipal Corporation that the respondent no.1 without obtaining the required permission carried out illegal construction in the final plots bearing nos.337 and 338 and, therefore, the complaint came to be filed under Section 52 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act (For short ’M.R.T.P. Act), 1966. The learned Magistrate :2: acquitted the respondent no.1 on two grounds namely, the previous sanction under Section 142 of the M.R.T.P. Act to prosecute the respondent no.1 was not taken and the applicant/Municipal Corporation has not placed any evidence in the form of any measurement map or report to show as to how much construction was made in the above final plots. Mr.Patil the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/Municipal Corporation pointed out to me that the learned Magistrate was not correct when he held that no previous sanction to prosecute the respondent no.1 was taken under Section 142 of the M.R.T.P. Act. He pointed out that infact, sanction was given by the Chief Officer of the applicant/Municipal Corporation. However, on perusal of Section 142 of the M.R.T.P. Act, it reveals that in order to institute prosecution, previous sanction is required to be granted by the planning authority or any officer authorised by such authority. Mr.Patil submitted that the Chief Officer in this particular case had granted sanction to the prosecution. However, it is not the case of the applicant that powers of Planning Authority are delegated to C.E.O. there is nothing on record to show that the said Chief Officer was authorised by the Planning Authority to give sanction to the prosecution. In absence of any evidence to that effect, in my view, the prosecution is not maintainable. I find no merit in the criminal application. Hence, leave is refused. :3: (R.V.MORE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.)