Court acquits housing society office bearers booked for not repairing bldg

MUMBAI: The sessions court on Friday acquitted two office bearers, of Jasmine Co-Operative Housing Society in Dadar, who were booked in 2010 for not responding to a notice issued to them by the civic body and for not repairing the building in stipulated time.

The office bearers of the society were booked at the instance of the assistant commissioner of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation.

The sessions court set aside the order of the magistrate court, which held the former office bearers Vinod Shah and BV Patange, guilty and sentenced them to three months imprisonment and fine of ₹10,000 each.

The sessions court thus held that the authority and the delegation of power to two officials was not proper. There was no proof of service of notice to the office bearers of the society. The court also held that the time given in the notice was insufficient to carry out the repairs, considering the nature of repairs.

“Structural audit report and second inspection report in such circumstances, cannot be given undue importance, as foundational facts of the prosecution case are not proved,” the court said while allowing the appeal filed by society, Shah and Patange.

The conviction order was challenged before the sessions court on various grounds.

As per the prosecution case, on June 15, 2010, junior engineer Abhijeet Dixit along with sub-engineer SL Choudhary had conducted an inspection of the building and found cracks in columns and beams with steel inside them exposed at many places. They also noted that there was leakage from many bathrooms in the building and plaster was also damaged.

Based on the said report, the accused persons —chairman and secretary of the society — were asked to carry out repairs.

The officials conducted a second inspection on November 18, 2010, and found that the society had not complied with the directive to carry out repairs, as asked by notice dated September 17, 2010. Hence, they initiated criminal proceedings against the society and its office bearers.

The society had contended that the magistrate court failed to consider that there was no documentary evidence on record to prove that the building was in ruinous condition or was likely to fall.

Besides, it was contended that when the officials visited the society, Shah and Patange had informed them that they were no longer office bearers of the society, as they had resigned in July 2010.

It was contended that the time given to society to repair the building was not sufficient and the members needed more time to arrange funds to carry out the repairs.

Besides, it was pointed out that the notice for dangerous structure was given in 2010. As of now in 2023, the building is as it was. It was also shown the building was repaired during the tenure of Shah and Patange and the prosecution failed to show any expert opinion to show that the building really required repairs.