S. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) ?this petition in revision is directed against the order dated 24. 09. 88 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagore in C. R. No. 504/88/t. R. No. 796/1988 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 501 read with Section 317/324 of the Bengal Municipal Act and thereafter issuing processes against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint filed by the Chairman Bhadreswar Municipality i. e. , Opposite party No. 1. ( 2 ) THE de facto complaint-opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional judicial Magistrate, Chandannagore on 24. 09. 88 alleging therein that the accused petitioner being the owner of the municipal holding No. 26 in Ward No. 2 at Grand Trunk Road within Bhadreswar Municipality had got a plan sanctioned by the said Municipality on 25. 11. 87 for construction of a commercial-cum-residential building. Sometime thereafter during the course of a routine inspection by an overseer of Bhadreswar Municipality it was detected that the accused petitioner had made certain construction in deviation to the sanction of plan. Since there was an unauthorised construction in violation of the sanctioned plan, a notice bearing No. 378 dated 10. 01. 88 was issued by the Municipality and the same was also served upon him directing him to show cause why the alleged unauthorised construction should not be demolished. Subsequently, two more such notices were issued on 09. 03. 88 and 06. 04. 88 by the Municipality and, ultimately, in the meeting of the Commissioners held on 14. 05. 88 a resolution was adopted for institution of a complaint under section 501 read with section 317/324 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 against the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, a complaint was filed by the complaint-opposite party No. 1 before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagore, who, on his turn, by an order dated 24. 09. 88 took congnizance of the alleged offence and directed to issue summons upon the accused petitioner. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the above mentioned order dated 24. 09. 88 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagore, the accused petitioner has come up with the instant petitioner-in-revision assailing the order, mainly, on the ground that the prosecution would not lie against him for non-comliance of the mandatory provisions of law as contemplated under sections 321 and 324 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. 09. 88 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagore, the accused petitioner has come up with the instant petitioner-in-revision assailing the order, mainly, on the ground that the prosecution would not lie against him for non-comliance of the mandatory provisions of law as contemplated under sections 321 and 324 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. It has been contended that the Municipal Commissioner had failed to issue notices to the petitioner accused disclosing the details of the deviation allegedly made by him from the sanctioned building plan and also that the construction plan, as already sanctioned by the Commissioner, had not been cancelled before adopting a resolution to prosecute the accused petitioner. Beside this, it was further emphatically contended that the complaint, lodged by the O. P. No. 1, was barred by limitation as prescribed in section 533 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. ( 4 ) SINCE there was no response in spite of an opportunity on behalf of the de facto complaint/opposite party No. 1, i. e. , Bhadreswar Municipality as also on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, i. e. , State of West Bengal, the matter was heard ex parte. ( 5 ) WHAT is most apparently noticeable in the instant case is with regard to the limitation as prescribed in section 533 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 which speaks as follows :-"533. Sanction and limitation for prosecution under this Act-No prosecution for an offence under this Act or any rule or by-law made in pursuance there of shall be instituted without the order or consent of the Commissioner, and no such prosecution shall be instituted except within six months next after the commission of such offence, unless the offence is continuous in it, nature, in which case a prosecution may be instituted within six months of the date of which the commission or existence of the offence was brought to the notice of the Chairman : provided that the failure to take out any license under this Act shall be deemed to be a continuing offence until the expiration of the period for which such license is required to be taken out. " ( 6 ) IN this context, it would be derived from the factual matrix of the instant case that as a result of a routine inspection made by an overseer of the concerned Municipality it was allegedly detected that there was some construction being made on (details not disclosed) in deviation to the construction plan sanctioned by the Municipality and, accordingly, the matter was reported to the Chairman of the Municipality i. e. , opposite party No. 1. Thereupon, a notice bearing No. 378 dated 10. 01. 88 was issued by the Chairman of the Municipality, which is available on the record. On perusal of this notice, it could be very well determined that the alleged unauthorised construction having been made by the accused-petitioner has come to the notice of the authority to the rank of the Chairman of the Municipality at the latest as along back as on 10. 02. 88, whereas the purported complaint was lodged on 24. 09. 88. Obviously, there was a gap of more than six months between the commission or existence of the alleged offence being brought to the notice of the Chairman and the institution of the prosecution. In view of the specific provision as made under Section 533 of the Bengal Municipal Act it is manifest on the record that the complaint was barred by limitation. No reasonable ground much less any effort to overcome the mischief of the limitation prescribed appears to have been taken notice of by or on behalf of the Municipal Authority at any point of time. That being as such it is difficult to deprive the accused petitioner of a valuable legal right, which had accrued to him under the specific provision of the law. ( 7 ) SINCE the complaint on the basis of which the accused petitioner is sought to be prosecuted is barred by law of limitation prescribed in Section 533 of the Bengal Municipal Act, the impugned order taking cognizance on the basis of the same cannot be sustained. There appears no need to consider some other points, raised in the revisional petition. The revision petition thus succeeds and the prosecution of the accused petitioner in C. R. No. 504/88/t. R. 796/88 is quashed. Petition succeeds.