1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.123 OF 2006 Mr.Chandrakant Damjibai Tank ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.H.S.Venegavkar, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. D.R. More,A.P.P for the State CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 3RD NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.The Applicant s Advocate has contended that the Criminal Appeal No.337/2004 filed by the Petitioner was in respect of 2 points being limitation and extension of the suit structure. Advocate Mr. Venegavkar now states that in this Revision Application he seeks to prosecute only the point of limitation under Section 514 of the M.M.C.Act. He specifically states that he gives up his contentions in respect of the extension of the structure constituting the structure an unauthorised construction, which has been considered in Appeal No.337/2004. It may be mentioned that, that aspect having been considered in the impugned judgment is seen to be correct by this Court. The only question for consideration is the limitation for prosecution under Section 514(c). 2 2.The learned Advocate for the Applicant showed some certain key dates. The initial inspection of the unauthorised construction by way of extension was taken on 23rd August 2002. Notice under Section 351 of the M.M.C. Act was issued some time in January 2003. The inspection by the Assistant Commissioner who passed the order was again taken on 12th March, 2003. The complaint was made on 21st April 2003. 3.It is contended that the complaint should have been filed within 3 months from 23rd August 2002. This aspect of limitation has not been considered in the impugned judgment. Hence the matter is remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai to consider and adjudicate upon only the aspect of limitation for the prosecution. 4.Criminal Revision Application is disposed off accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)