JUDGMENT - ASHOK AGARWAL, J.:---A short question that arises for my consideration in the present appeal is whether the instant complaint filed against the first respondent is within limitation or is time barred. 2. The appellant is the Bombay Municipal Corporation, who is original complainant in the case. The premises belonging to the accused, being No. 1/44, Mankhurd village, Deonar, Bombay, was inspected by the Junior Engineer of the complainant on 15th July, 1983. A notice under section 248 (1)(c) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was served upon the accused on 25th August, 1983 calling upon him to convert the basket type privy into water type closets. The accused was called upon to carry out the work within 120 days from the date of the service of the notice. The notice further provided that for reckoning the notice period the monsoon period i.e. the period between 15th June and 14th October will be excluded while computing the period of 120 days granted to carry out the work. The accused did not comply and hence the complainant on 18th April, 1984 filed a complaint alleging offence under section 248 (1)(c) read with section 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. In the trial Court the accused filed an application for discharge on the ground that the complaint was time barred under section 514 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. According to the accused the site in question was visited on 15th July, 1983. Hence the offence was detected on that day. According to the defence, the complaint ought to have been filed within three months from the date the offence was detected. Since the present complaint was filed beyond the aforesaid period as laid down under section 514, the complaint is time barred and is liable to be dismissed and the accused is entitled to an order of discharge. 3. The aforesaid application was resisted by the complainant contending that by the notice which was served on the accused on 25th August, 1983 a period of 120 days was granted to carry out the requisition. The notice further provided that the notice is exclusive of monsoon period, being the period between 15th June and 14th October, 1983. The said period is excluded as during the monsoon it is not possible to carry out the requisite works. The notice further provided that the notice is exclusive of monsoon period, being the period between 15th June and 14th October, 1983. The said period is excluded as during the monsoon it is not possible to carry out the requisite works. Hence the period of 120 days will have to be reckoned from 15th October, 1983. Hence the period of limitation will be extended till 15th October, 1984. Hence the date of the offence would be 12th February, 1984. In the instant case the complaint is filed on 18th April, 1984 which is well within the period of three months from the date of the commission of the offence. Hence, according to the Corporation, the complaint was not barred by limitation. 4. By a judgment and order dated 20th January, 1986 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, I/C 42nd Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, Bombay, was pleased to hold that the instant complaint was time barred. Hence the application of the accused was allowed and he was discharged. Taking exception to the said order the original complainant the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, has filed the present appeal. 5. In order to find out whether the complaint has been filed within the period of limitation or is time barred, it would be necessary to find out the date on which the offence complained of can be said to have been committed. The facts are few. The premises in question were inspected on 15th July, 1983. A notice under section 248(1)(c) of the Act was served upon the accused on 25th August, 1983. Section 248(1)(c) provides as under : "(1) Where any premises are without a water-closet, or privy, or urinal, or bathing or washing place, or if the Commissioner is of opinion that the existing water-closet, or privy, or urinal or bathing or washing place accommodation available for the persons occuping or employed in any premises is insufficient, inefficient, or on any sanitary grounds objectionable, the Commissioner may, by written notice, require the owner of such premises - (a) ..... (b) ..... (c) to substitute water-closet accommodation for any privy accommodation." It is under the above provision that the accused has been called upon to convert basket type privy into water closet. The notice called upon the accused to carry out the work within 120 days from the date of the service of the notice. (b) ..... (c) to substitute water-closet accommodation for any privy accommodation." It is under the above provision that the accused has been called upon to convert basket type privy into water closet. The notice called upon the accused to carry out the work within 120 days from the date of the service of the notice. The notice further provides that the notice period is exclusive of the monsoon period, being the period between 15th June, 1983 and 14th October, 1983. The short question to be decided is when can the offence be said to have been committed. The instant prosecution is for imposing a penalty for non compliance of the requisition contained in the notice, and this is what is made penal under section 471(b) of the Act. Section 471(b) of the Act, in so far as is relevant, provides as under : (a) ..... (b) fails to comply with any requisition lawfully made upon him under any of the said sections, sub-sections or clauses shall be punished ----- Hence it is the non compliance of the requisition contained in the notice which is made penal under the Act. 6. In the instant case, the notice has been served upon the accused on 25th August, 1983. The notice grants 120 days time to carry out the requisition. The notice, however, provides that while reckoning 120 days, the monsoon period, being the period between 15th June, 1983 and 14th October, 1983 will be excluded. Since the notice has been served on 25th October, 1983 which falls within the monsoon period, the period of 120 days can be computed after the expiry of the monsoon period i.e. from 15th October, 1983. The accused was thus called upon to carry out the requisition within 120 days from 15th October, 1983 i.e. on or about 12th February, 1984. This would be the date when the offence in question can be said to have been committed. Under section 514(c) of the Act a limitation period of three months is laid down for filing a complaint. The period of limitation would thus expire on or about 11th May, 1984. The instant complaint has been filed on 18th April, 1984 and hence the said complaint is filed well within the period of limitation as laid down in section 514. 7. The period of limitation would thus expire on or about 11th May, 1984. The instant complaint has been filed on 18th April, 1984 and hence the said complaint is filed well within the period of limitation as laid down in section 514. 7. Another way of looking at the matter is to test whether a complaint if the same were to have been filed prior to 12th February, 1984 could be said to be competent. In that case it would be legitimately open to the accused to urge that the complaint is premature as the period to carry out the work, as granted by the notice, has not expired. It would be open to the accused to contend that under the notice itself while computing the period of 120 days, which are granted for carrying out the requisition, the monsoon period is not to be reckoned. Hence the period of 120 days can be computed only from 15th October, 1983 i.e. after the monsoon period. Hence the accused has time upto 12th February, 1984 to carry out the requisition. Hence any complaint filed prior to 12th February, 1983 is premature. It is only on 12th February, 1984 that an offence can be said to have been committed. 8. Once it is found that the offence in question has been committed on 12th February, 1984 the complainant has three months period of limitation to file the complaint. The present complaint, which is filed on 18th April, 1984 is well within the period of three months. Hence it is filed within the period of limitation. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 28th January, 1986 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 42nd Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, Bombay, in C.C. No. 1031/MD/1985 discharging the first respondent-original accused is set aside and the complaint is restored to file of the Court of the aforesaid learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Magistrate will proceed to hear and dispose of the complaint on its own merits and in accordance with law. 10. The appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed. *****