JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has been convicted by a Municipal Magistrate under section 537 read with Rule 5 (1) of Schedule XVII of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -. Premises No. 20b, Bhim Ghose Lane was considered by the Corporation of Calcutta to be in a dangerous condition. A notice was accordingly addressed to the owner under Rule 5 (1) of Schedule XVII of the Act. The owner was personally served. The notice required him to secure and repair the building within a stated date. A similar notice was affixed on a conspicuous part of the building. The petitioner not having shown cause against the notice nor complied with the requisition, a prosecution was started against him under section 537 for contravention of Rule 5 (1) of Schedule XVII of the Act. 2. The petitioner appeared before the Magistrate on the 19th April, 1960 and never appeared again. On that date he represented that the repair works were in progress and if time was allowed he would be able to carry out the requisition. The petitioner thereafter defaulted in appearing before the Magistrate who took evidence as to the actual service of notice upon him. A witness was examined who stated that the requisition had not been complied with. All this happened on the 1st. August, 1960. The Magistrate then adjourned the case to the 8th of August, when after hearing evidence the Magistrate made the order complained of. Even on the 8th of August the petitioner did not appear with the result that the Magistrate felt obliged to proceed with the trial in his absence, and held that the petitioner had contravened Rule 5 (1) of Schedule XVII and accordingly convicted him under section 537 and sentenced him to pay the fine. A distress warrant was also directed to issue to realise the fine imposed. Thereafter the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate on the 25th August and prayed for recalling the distress. He stated that he had carried out the requisition which involved him in an expenditure to the tune of Rs. 280/ -. The Magistrate recalled the distress and allowed him time to pay the fine. The petitioner took advantage of this respite and moved this Court. 3. He stated that he had carried out the requisition which involved him in an expenditure to the tune of Rs. 280/ -. The Magistrate recalled the distress and allowed him time to pay the fine. The petitioner took advantage of this respite and moved this Court. 3. It has been argued that the Magistrate's order is unsustainable inasmuch as Rule 5 of Schedule XVII was not in terms complied with. The contention is that although he might himself have been served, there was co-owner, namely, his mother, who had not been served; secondly, the notice was not affixed on a conspicuous part of, the building. On behalf of the Corporation a counter-affidavit has been filed to the effect that the petitioner's mother is not the joint owner of the premises in question. This statement is said to be true to the deponent's information derived from the records of the Corporation. I have no reason to distrust this statement. Rule 5 requires a notice to be affixed on a conspicuous part of the building only when the owner is not the occupier. The language used is that when the Commissioner is of opinion that the building is in a ruinous state or likely to fall, or in any way dangerous, "he shall forthwith cause a written notice to be served on the owner and also to be put on some conspicuous part of the wall or building or served on the occupier, if any, of the building, requiring such owner or occupier, forthwith to demolish, repair or secure such wall or building. " It seems clear that if the owner himself is in occupation of the premises the notice need not be affixed on the building. In any event it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that a notice was in fact affixed on a conspicuous part of the structure which was then in a ruinous state. There is in my view no substance in this complaint. It was sought to be argued that the petitioner's mother who was said to he a co-owner not having been served with a notice, the resultant proceedings were bad. Reliance was placed on section 554 in aid of the contention that unless the Commissioner was satisfied that service on all the owners was not practicable, service of notice on the petitioner alone would not be sufficient. Reliance was placed on section 554 in aid of the contention that unless the Commissioner was satisfied that service on all the owners was not practicable, service of notice on the petitioner alone would not be sufficient. This criticism is answered by the counter-affidavit that the petitioner's mother is not a co-owner of the premises. 4. It was then argued that the provisions of section 242 and 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with and the resultant conviction must, therefore, be held bad. It is to be observed that the petitioner was tried in his absence although he had been served personally. He appeared once in obedience to its process and never appeared again before the conclusion of the trial. It was not that the case was taken up on the first date of hearing and disposed of by the Magistrate. The record indicates that before the Magistrate decided to proceed with the case in the absence of the accused he took care to satisfy himself that the summons had been duly served. No sufficient cause existed for his non-appearance. Section 581 of the Calcutta Municipal Act provides that if any person summoned to appear before a Magistrate to answer a charge of offence fails to appear at the time and place mentioned in the summons, the Magistrate may on proof of service of summons and of absence of sufficient cause for non-appearance of the person charged, hear and determine the case in his absence. Before a case can be beard and determined in the absence of the person charged, the Magistrate is required to satisfy himself as to the due service of summons; he would also have to be satisfied that no sufficient case existed for his non-appearance. The Magistrate's proceedings dated the 1st of August, 1960 would clearly show that there were materials which might reasonably justify action under section 581. On that date the Magistrate did not straightway proceed to hear the case. He adjourned it till the 8th of August when he took evidence and came to a decision. In my opinion the Magistrate was quite entitled to do so in view of the provision of section 581 which 1 have just read. On that date the Magistrate did not straightway proceed to hear the case. He adjourned it till the 8th of August when he took evidence and came to a decision. In my opinion the Magistrate was quite entitled to do so in view of the provision of section 581 which 1 have just read. If proof of the existence of circumstances justifying trial of an absent accused is admissible that would mean and imply that the accused would not be before the Court when the trial takes place. The consequence of such procedure must inevitably be that there would be no examination of the accused either under section 242 or under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These previsions of the Code can only apply when the person charged is present in court: he must be there to be examined either at the commencement of the trial or later in the course of the proceedings. The special provision contained in section 581 authorises the Magistrate to proceed with the case in the absence of the accused. That must necessarily mean that there need be no examination of the accused either under section 242 or section 342 of the Code. The validity of the proceedings cannot be challenged by reason of non-compliance with these provisions in view of sub-sec. (2) of section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which authorises trial of offences under laws other than the Indian Penal Code in accordance with the rules of Criminal Procedure but subject to any enactment regulating the manner of trying such offence. Section 581 is that overriding provision in the enactment. I must, therefore, hold that the petition fails; the Rule must accordingly be discharged. Let the counter affidavits filed in Court be kept on the record.