http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: ATTIQ-UR-REHMAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHIAND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/02/1996

BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  956            1996 SCC  (3)  37  JT 1996 (2)   670        1996 SCALE  (2)557

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R DR. A.S. ANAND,J.      Special leave granted.      The only  question involved  in this case is whether in the absence  of the appointment of a Municipal Magistrate, a Metropolitan Magistrate  can  take  cognizance  and  try  an accused for  commission of  an offence  punishable under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ?      The circumstances  in which  this question  has  arisen need a brief notice at the thresh-hold.      On 6.6.1989,  a Junior  Engineer of  the complainant  - Municipal Corporation  of  Delhi  (respondent  No.1  herein) filed a  report against  the appellant alleging unauthorized construction of roof and a stair-case on the ground floor of the appellant’s  property situate at 1535-1537, Church Road, Kashmere Gate,  Delhi. The appellant apprehending demolition of his  house, filed  Civil Suit No.616 of 1989 in the Court of Sub-Judge,  Delhi,  contending  inter  alia  -  that  the replacement of  the roof and the alleged repairs/alterations were permissible under the building bye-laws and required no formal order of sanction and, therefore, the appellant could not  be   said  to   have  carried   out  any   unauthorized construction and sought an injunction against Respondent No. 1 restraining  it from demolishing the alleged ’unauthorized construction’. After  contest, the  suit was decreed. It was found that  notice for  demolition  had  not  been  properly served. Respondent  No.1 was restrained from demolishing the property of the appellant except in due process of law". The Junior Engineer  of respondent No.1 filed three more reports on 21.8.1989  and 4.9.1989  and 17.11.1989  alleging further unauthorized constructions  in  the  said  property  by  the appellant.  On   the  basis   of  those  reports,  Municipal Corporation of  Delhi, respondent  No.1, on  17th  November, 1989 filed a criminal complaint (Case No. 533 of 1989) under Section 332  read with  Section 461 of the Delhi Municipal ,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

Corporation Act,  1957 (hereinafter  ’the Act’)  against the appellant in  the Court  of Sh.  R.S.  Khanna,  Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.  The  appellant  moved  two  applications before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi - one for the stay of criminal  proceedings during  the pendency  of the  civil suit and  the second  seeking return of the complaint on the ground that the Metropolitan Magistrates had no jurisdiction to try  him for  the offence  under Section  332  read  with Section 461  of the Act in view of the provisions of Section 469 of  the Act  and in  the  absence  of  any  Notification conferring  powers   of   Municipal   Magistrates   on   the Metropolitan  Magistrates.   Both  the   applications   were rejected on  26th February,  1991. The  learned Metropolitan Magistrate held  that the  plea of  the appellant  that  the court had  no  jurisdiction  to  try  the  offence  was  not maintainable and  there was no justification for staying the criminal proceedings  during the  Pendency of the civil suit as the  scope of  the suit  and the  criminal complaint  was different.  Aggrieved,   the  appellant   filed  a  criminal revision petition  in the  High Court  of  Delhi  which  was summarily dismissed  on 26th May, 1991. Hence this appeal by special leave.      Learned counsel  for the  appellant submitted  that  an offence under  the Act  can only  be tried  by  a  Municipal Magistrate  appointed  under  the  Act  and  a  Metropolitan Magistrate exercising  general jurisdiction has no authority to take  cognizance of  an offence under the Act and try any person accused  of an  offence under  the Act. It was argued that the  learned Metropolitan  Magistrate fell  in error in rejecting the applications and the High Court also failed to appreciate the  importance  of  the  question  involved  and erroneously dismissed  the  Criminal  Revision  Petition  in limine by a non-speaking order.      Learned counsel  for the  respondent argued  with equal vehemence that  in the  absence of  appointment of Municipal Magistrates under  the Act,  jurisdiction  to  try  offences under other laws" vested in the Metropolitan Magistrates and the  appellant   was  rightly   put  on   trial  before  the Metropolitan Magistrate.      We do  find some substance in the submission of learned counsel for  the appellant  that the High Court ought not to have dismissed  the criminal  revision petition  by  a  non- speaking order  in limine,  in view of the importance of the question raised  in the  revision petition but we are of the opinion that  instead of remanding the case back to the High Court, we need to decide the question of law ourselves since on facts  there is  no dispute  and the  appeal has remained pending in this Court for about five years.      With a view to answer the question noted in the opening part of  our judgment, it is necessary to notice some of the relevant provisions  of the  Act and  the Code  of  Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinaftar Cr.P.C.).      Section 466(a)  of the  Act makes Cr.P.C. applicable to the proceedings  under the  Act and  makes an  offence under Section 313 of the Act cognizable.      Section 467  deals with the prosecution of offences and reads as under:      "467.  Prosecutions   -   Save   as      otherwise provided  in this Act, no      court shall proceed to the trial of      any offence .      (a)  under   sub-section   (54   of      section 313  or section 332 or sub-      section (1)  of section 333 or sub-      section  (1)   of  section  334  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

    section  343   or  section  344  or      section 345  or section  347 except      on  the   complaint  of   or   upon      information  received   from   such      officer  of  the  Corporation,  not      being below  the rank  of a  Deputy      Commissioner, as  may be  appointed      by the Administrator ;      xxx             xxx             xxx      Section 469  of the  Act  reads  as      follows:      "469. Municipal Magistrate      "(1)  The  Central  Government  may      appoint one  or more magistrates of      the first  class for  the trial  of      offences  against   this  Act   and      against  any  rule,  regulation  or      bye-law  made  thereunder  and  may      prescribe the  time  and  place  at      which such magistrate or magistrate      shall  sit   for  the  despatch  of      business.      (2)  Such   magistrates  shall   be      called  municipal   magistrate  and      shall beside  the trial of offences      as aforesaid,  exercise  all  other      powers  and   discharge  all  other      functions  of   a   magistrate   as      provided in  this Act  or any rule.      regulation    or    bye-law    made      thereunder.      (3)  Such   magistrates   and   the      members of  their  staff  shall  be      paid such  salary,  pension,  leave      and other  allowances as  may, from      time  to  time,  be  fixed  by  the      Central Government.      (4) The  Corporation shall,  out of      the  Municipal  Fund,  pay  to  the      Central Government  the amounts  of      the  salary,   pension,  leave  and      other  allowances  as  fixed  under      sub-section (3)  together with  all      other   incidental    charges    in      connection with  the establishments      of the said magistrates.(      5) Each  such magistrate shall have      jurisdiction  over   the  whole  of      Delhi.      (6) For the purposes of the Code of      Criminal   Procedure,   1898,   all      municipal   magistrates   appointed      under this  Act shall  be deemed to      be  magistrates   appointed   under      Section 12 of the said Code.      (7) Nothing in this shall be deemed      to    preclude    any    magistrate      appointed hereunder from trying any      offence under any other law."      Section 470  of the Act provides as      follows :      "470. All offences against this Act      or any  rule, regulation or bye-law      made thereunder,  whether committed      within or  without  the  limits  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

    Delhi, shall  be  cognizable  by  a      municipal   magistrate   and   such      magistrate shall  not be  deemed to      be incapable  of taking  cognizance      of  any  such  offence  or  of  any      offence under  any enactment  which      is repealed  by, or which ceases to      have  effect   under  this  Act  by      reason only  of his being liable to      pay any  municipal tax  or rate  or      benefitted  out  of  the  Municipal      Fund.      Chapter II  of Cr.P.C.  deals with  the Constitution of Criminal Courts and offices.      Section 4 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:      "4. Trial  of  offences  under  the      Indian Penal  Code and other laws.-      (1) All  offences under  the Indian      Penal Code  (45 of  1860) shall  be      investigated, inquired into, tried,      and otherwise  dealt with according      to   the   provisions   hereinafter      contained.      (2) All  offences under  any  other      law shall be investigated, inquired      into, tried,  and  otherwise  dealt      with   according    to   the   same      provisions,  but   subject  to  any      enactment for  the  time  being  in      force  regulating   the  manner  or      place of  investigating,  inquiring      into, trying  or otherwise  dealing      with such offences."      Section  5   Cr.P.C   provides   as      follows :      5. Saving.  - Nothing  contained in      this Code  shall, in the absence of      a   specific   provision   to   the      contrary,  affect  any  special  or      local law  for the  time  being  in      force, or  any special jurisdiction      or power  conferred, or any special      form of  procedure  prescribed,  by      any other law for the time being in      force."      Section 6 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:      "Classes   of   Criminal   Courts.-      Besides the  High  Courts  and  the      Courts constituted  under any  law,      other than  this Code,  there shall      be, in  every State  the  following      classes of Criminal Courts, namely-      (i) Courts of Session ;      (ii) Judicial  Magistrates  of  the      first    class    and,    in    any      metropolitan   area,   Metropolitan      Magistrates ;      (iii) Judicial  Magistrates of  the      second class : and      (iv) Executive Magistrates.      Sections 8  and 16  of Cr.P.C  deal with  the courts of Metropolitan Magistrates  and inter  alia  provide  that  in every metropolitan  area, the  State Government  may,  after consultation  with   the  High  Court  establish  courts  of Metropolitan Magistrates  at such  places and in such number

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

as it  may specify.  The presiding  officers of  such courts shall be  appointed by  the High  Court and the jurisdiction and powers  of every such Magistrate shall extend throughout the metropolitan  area.  The  High  Court  shall  appoint  a Metropolitan Magistrate  as Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in every metropolitan  area and  may  also  appoint  Additional Chief Metropolitan  Magistrates and  such other Metropolitan Magistrates as it may deemed necessary.      Section 11  of Cr.P.C.  deals with the establishment of the courts  of the  Judicial Magistrates  while  Section  13 deals with the appointments of Special Judicial Magistrates.      Section 14 Cr.P.C. deals with the local Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates and inter-alia provides :-      "14. Local jurisdiction of Judicial      Magistrates.-(1)  Subject   to  the      control  of  the  High  Court,  the      Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from      time  to  time,  define  the  local      limits of  the areas  within  which      the  Magistrates   appointed  under      Section 11  or under Section 13 may      exercise all  or any  of the powers      with which they may respectively be      invested under this Code :           Provided that  the Court  of a      Special  Judicial   Magistrate  may      hold  its   sitting  at  any  place      within the  local area for which it      is established.      (2) .......................      (3) .......................      It is  in the light of the aforesaid provisions that we have to resolve the question formulated above.      Facts are  not in  dispute insofar  as the  question of jurisdiction is  concerned. Admittedly  at the relevant time no Municipal  Magistrate had  been appointed  in  accordance with the  provisions of  Section 469  of  the  Act  and  the complaint was  filed by  respondent No.  1 in  the Court  of Metropolitan Magistrate,  Delhi, for  trial  of  an  offence punishable  under  Section  332  of  the  Act.  The  learned Metropolitan Magistrate  is a  Judicial  Magistrate  of  the First Class  but there  was no  notification  by  which  the powers of Municipal Magistrates were conferred on him.      From a  plain reading  of Section  4 Cr.P.C. (supra) it emerges that  the provisions  of Criminal Procedure Code are applicable where  an offence  under the Indian Penal Code or under any  other law  is being  investigated, inquired into, tried or otherwise dealt with.      Section 469  of the Act empowers the central Government to appoint one or more Magistrates of the First Class to try offences under  the Act.  All such  Magistrates  are  called Municipal  Magistrates   and  shall  besides  the  trial  of offences under  the  Act,  rules,  regulations  or  bye-laws framed  thereunder,   exercise  all  other  functions  of  a Magistrate as  provided in  the Act   and  are not precluded from trying  offences under  any other  law as  well.  Every Municipal Magistrate  appointed under Section 469 of the Act by the  Central Government  is a  Judicial Magistrate of the First Class and shall be deemed to be a Magistrate appointed under Section  12 Cr.P.C.  Thus, no  person  who  is  not  a Judicial Magistrate  of the  first Class  can  be  conferred powers of  a Municipal  Magistrate to try offences under the Act, rules, regulations or bye-laws made under the Act.       The bar of jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts to try of  offences under  the Act  is brought about by Section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

470 of  the Act  which inter alia provides that all offences under the  Act, whether  committed  within  or  without  the limits  of   Delhi  shall   be  cognizable  by  a  Municipal Megistrate. Vide  Section 467  of the  Act  no  Court  shall proceed to  the  trial  of  any  offence  specified  in  the section, including  an offence  under Section 332 of the Act except on  a complaint  of or  information received  from an officer,  not   below  the   rank  of  Deputy  Commissioner, appointed by the Administrator of the Corporation.      Keeping in  view the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure it emerges that the Government  has an  obligation under  Section 469 of the Act to  appoint Municipal  Magistrates for trial of offences under  the   Act,  rules,   regulations  or   bye-laws  made thereunder. The  use of the word "may" in Section 469 of the Act only indicates that the Government has the discretion to appoint one  or more  Municipal Magistrates but it certainly does not relieve the Government of its obligation to appoint Municipal Magistrates  and once  such Municipal  Magistrates are appointed, they alone would have the jurisdiction to try offences under  the Act as per the mandate of Section 470 of the Act.  The bar  under Section  470  of  the  Act  becomes operative  only   when  a   Municipal  Magistrate  has  been appointed for  trial of  offences under the Act. The Cr.P.C. is comprehensive and exhaustive. To the extent that no valid machinery is  set up  under any  other law  for trial of any particular case,  the jurisdiction  of the ordinary criminal court cannot  be said  to have  been excluded.  Exclusion of jurisdiction of  a court  of  general  jurisdiction  can  be brought about  only by  setting up  of a  court  of  limited jurisdiction in  respect of  the limited field provided that the vesting and the exercise of that limited jurisdiction is clear and operative. Thus, where there is no valid machinery for the  exercise of  jurisdiction in  a specific  case  the exercise of  jurisdiction by the Judicial Magistrates or the Metropolitan Magistrates,  as the case may, is not excluded. The law  and procedure  for trial  of cases under the Indian Penal Code  and those  under other  statutes,  according  to Section 4  Cr.P.C. is not different except that in the cases of offences  under other  laws, the  procedures laid down by the Cr.P.C.  is subject  to the  provisions of  the relevant enactment for  the time  being in  force for  regulating the manner of trial of offences under that enactment.      A conjoint reading of the provisions of Cr.P C. and the Act, therefore,  unambiguously suggests  that in the absence of courts of special jurisdiction i.e. Municipal Magistrates to be  appointed under  Section 469  of the  Act, a Judicial Magistrate of  the First Class or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the  case may  be, shall have the jurisdiction and powers to try  the offences  under the  Act in  accordance with the procedure envisaged  by  Section  467  of  the  Act  and  in accordance with  the  limitation  the  time  prescribed  for initiation of  the criminal proceedings under Section 471 of the Act.  This interpretation is in accord with the position that every  offence committed under the Indian Penal Code or under any  other law  for the  time being  in force  must be tried and  an accused  cannot  be  permitted  to  raise  any objection with regard to the forum for trial of the offence, where the  specific forum has not been constituted under the Act because  the law  does not contemplate an offence, to go untried. Where,  no court of a Municipal Magistrate has been constituted under Section 469 of the Act and no Notification has also  been issued  conferring the  powers of a Municipal Magistrate on  a Particular Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or  a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

jurisdiction  of   an  ordinary   criminal  court   to  take cognizance of  the offences  committed under the Act, rules, regulations or  bye-laws made  thereunder is  exercisable by the  courts  of  general  jurisdiction  established  to  try offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as the offences under any other law.      We, therefore,  unhesitatingly come  to the  conclusion that in  the absence  of establishment  of the  courts of  a municipal Magistrate  under Section  469  of  the  Act,  the Magistrates  of   the  First  Class  including  Metropolitan Magistrates are  competent to  try offences punishable under the Act, rules, regulations or bye-laws made thereunder. Our answer to  the question  posed in  the opening  part of  the judgment, therefore, is in the affirmative.      In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any error to  have been  committed by  the learned  Metropolitan Magistrate in  taking conginance  of the  complaint filed by respondent No.  1 under Section 332 read with Section 461 of the Act  against the appellant since it is not disputed that the complaint had been filed in the manner prescribed by the Act. Respondent  No. 1  could not  have filed  the complaint before a  Municipal  Magistrate,  since  no  such  Municipal Magistrate had  been appointed.  The legal  maxim  ’Tex  non cojit ad impossibility’ which means "the law does not compel a man  to do  that which  he cannot possibly do" is squarely attracted to  the fact  situation in this case. This appeal, therefore, must  fail and  is hereby  dismissed.  The  trial court is  directed to expeditiously conduct the trial of the criminal complaint  No.533 of  1989 for  the  offence  under Sections 332/461  of the  Delhi Municipal  Corporation  Act, 1957. We  need not emphasis that if in the meanwhile a court of Municipal  Magistrate has  been established under Section 469 of  the  Act,  the  trial  of  the  complaint  shall  be conducted by that Court and the complaint shall be deemed to have been  transferred  to  that  court  for  its  trial  in accordance with  law from  the  court  of  the  Metropolitan Magistrate. Nothing  said hereinabove  shall,   however,  be construed as  any expression of opinion on the merits of the cases