JUDGMENT - A.D. TATED, J.:---This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th September, 1984 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, Bombay, in Criminal Case No. 3783/MW of 1983 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") against the respondent No. 1 -accused for the offences under section 274(l) read with section 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (Bombay Act No. III of 1888) (hereinafter referred to as "the B.M.C. Act") as barred by time. 2. The petitioner-Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay filed a complaint in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, against the respondent No. 1 -accused for the offence punishable under section 274(l) read with section 471 of the B.M.C. Act. It was alleged that on 7th March, 1983 the Junior Engineer of the Corporation on inspection and examination of the premises owned by the accused found that there were various defects and, therefore, a notice was issued to the accused and he was called upon to carry out the said work of repairs. The notice was duly served on the accused on 9th April, 1983. The Junior Engineer on 11th June, 1983 visited the spot and found that the accused failed to comply with the requisition law full made upon him under section 274(l) of the B.M.C. Act. Therefore, prosecution for the offence punishable under section 274(l) read with section 471 of the B.M.C. Act was launched against the accused. The petitioner-complainant objected to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of three months provided under section 514 of the B.M.C. Act for launching the prosecution. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate found that the offence was discovered on 7th March, 1983 and the prosecution was launched as late as 1st August, 1983, that is, beyond the period of limitation of three months provided under section 514 of the B.M.C. Act for launching such prosecution and, therefore, he dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the Corporation has filed this criminal revision application. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Corporation, Mr. E.M. Phadatare, contends that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was wrong in computing the period of limitation from 7th March, 1983. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the Corporation has filed this criminal revision application. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Corporation, Mr. E.M. Phadatare, contends that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was wrong in computing the period of limitation from 7th March, 1983. He submits that on discovery of certain defects in the building it was incumbent on the Commissioner of the Corporation to serve notice under section 274 of the B.M.C. Act on the respondent No. 1-accused and to call upon him to remedy the defects within a particular time, and only after his noncompliance with the requisition under section 274(l) of the B.M.C. Act the prosecution could be launched against the accused. He submitted that on non-compliance with tile requisition by the accused, the offence was a continuing offence and, therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was not right in dismissing the complaint as barred by time under section 514 of the B.M.C. Act. 5. Sub-section (1) of section 274 of the B.M.C. Act reads as follows :--- "274. (1) The Commissioner may, whenever it shall appear to him to be necessary, by written notice require the owner of any premises furnished with a private water supply from any municipal water work to provide such premises within a reasonable period which shall be prescribed in the said notice, with cisterns and fittings of such size, material, quality and description and placed in such position and with such safe and easy means of access as he thinks fit." Notice as per the provisions of section 274 of the B.M.C. Act was served on the respondent No. 1-accused on 9th April, 1983. The Junior Engineer thereafter on 11th June, 1983 visited the spot and found that the accused did not comply with the requisition issued to him under section 274(l) of the B.M.C. Act, and thereafter the complaint was filed on lst August, 1983. 6. The non-compliance of the requisition issued under section 274 of the B.M.C. Act is punishable under section 471 with a fine of Rs. 50/-. As the offence punishable is the non-compliance with the requisition issued under section 274(l) of the B.M.C. Act, the limitation for filing the complaint cannot commence before the service of requisition on the respondent No. 1-accused. 7. Clause (b) of section, 514 of the B.M.C. Act reads as follows :--- 514. 50/-. As the offence punishable is the non-compliance with the requisition issued under section 274(l) of the B.M.C. Act, the limitation for filing the complaint cannot commence before the service of requisition on the respondent No. 1-accused. 7. Clause (b) of section, 514 of the B.M.C. Act reads as follows :--- 514. No person shall be liable to punishment for any offence made punishable by this Act, unless complaint of such offence is made before a Presidency Magistrate within the time hereinafter prescribed in that behalf, namely :--- (b) if the offence be against the provisions of sections 223, 229-A, 240, 258, 272(l), 272(5), 274(l), 274(l-A), 281, 284, 287-B(l), 287-B(2) or 390, or any bye-laws framed under section 461(b), within three months next after the commission or discovery of such offence;" In the present case the non-compliance with the requisition was discovered by the Junior Engineer on 11th June, 1983 and the complaint was filed on 1st August, 1983, that is, within a period of three months provided under Clause (b) of section 514 of the B.M.C. Act. As stated earlier, the period of limitation could not be computed from the date prior to the service of requisition under section 274(l) of the B.M.C. Act. It was only after the service of the requisition and later on discovery after the expiry of the notice period that the requisition has not been complied with, the action for non-compliance of the requisition could be taken against the respondent No. 1-accused. In the present case it was on 11th June, 1983 that the Junior Engineer found that the requisition issued under section 274(l) and served on the accused on 9th April, 1983 was not complied with by the accused, and, therefore, the period of limitation will have to be computed from 11th June, 1983 when it was discovered that the requisition was not complied with. The complaint, having been filed within three months of the said date, is well within the period of limitation provided under section 514 of the B.M.C. Act. 8. Consequently, the judgment and order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint is set aside and the matter is remanded. The respondent No. 1-accused is not present before me and hence no date for his appearance in the trial Court can be given. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall issue him notice and shall decide the matter according to law. Consequently, the judgment and order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint is set aside and the matter is remanded. The respondent No. 1-accused is not present before me and hence no date for his appearance in the trial Court can be given. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall issue him notice and shall decide the matter according to law. Order accordingly. -----