ORDER : D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. 1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No. 164 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, SPSR Nellore District. 2. The accused/petitioners are charged with violation of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Fire Services Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act'). 3. This Court has heard Sri N. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Despite service, none appeared for the 2nd respondent. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State argues that the Act will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is his contention that the first petitioner is a hospital which is being run by the second petitioner. They are arrayed as A1 and A2. Learned Counsel submits that the Nursing Home is in a building consisting of two floors alongwith residential building on the top. The total height of the building is 13.60 meters. It is his contention that as per Section 13 of the Act, the height of the building should be above 15 metres for securing or obtaining No Objection Certificate. If the building is less than 15 metres, this section will not apply at all. He draws the attention of the Court to Section 13 of the Act, which clearly specifies that No Objection Certificate is necessary for a building more than 15 metres in height and other buildings, which are constructed in a plot area of more than 500 Square metres etc. Learned Counsel also submits that in view of this clear-cut provision of law, the sections are not applicable. He also points out that inspection was carried out on 27.10.2016 and thereafter a notice was issued for violation of fire prevention and fire safety measures. This notice was followed by a show-cause notice dated 4.8.2017 to which reply dated 1.10.2017 was given. Learned Senior Counsel points out that the reply to the show-cause notice clearly specified that the height of the building is less than 15 metres and the building plot area is less than 500 Square metres. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel argues that the complaint was filed mechanically without appreciation of the facts. Learned Senior Counsel points out that the reply to the show-cause notice clearly specified that the height of the building is less than 15 metres and the building plot area is less than 500 Square metres. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel argues that the complaint was filed mechanically without appreciation of the facts. He also submitted that as the inspection was conducted on 27.10.2016, the complaint is filed on 28.4.2018 is barred by time under Section 468 Cr.P.C., as the punishment is less than one year. These are the two essential points which are urged by the learned Senior Counsel. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, states that the inspection revealed that apart from the permission with regard to height of the building, the fire safety measures were not taken. He submits that the notice of inspection points out that the required open spaces were not provided as per the National Building Code of India. He also argues that the details of the fire safety measures were also not followed. Therefore, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the case on hand does not really relate to the height of the building and the No Objection also relates to the safety aspect of the building and the lack of adequate fire safety measures, escape measures etc. He points out that the fire fighting equipment is virtually not provided in the building. He also points out that the fire escapes, which are meant to be provided are not provided and the open spaces surrounding the building are also deficient making it virtually impossible for fire equipment to move in case of the fire. He also points out that in the notice of violation also, the hazard was ascertained as 'Moderate Hazard'. Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, points out that the owner has failed to provide adequate fire safety measures and maintain the same in accordance with Section 19 of the Act. He also points out that the show-cause notice as contemplated under Section 21 of the Act was issued on 4.8.2017 pursuant to Rule 29(5)(b) of the Act. He points out that 30 days period is contemplated under the rule for initiating prosecution. Thereafter, as the reply dated 1.10.2017 did not address the issue that is raised, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the complaint was filed. He also submits that the same is not barred by time. 6. He points out that 30 days period is contemplated under the rule for initiating prosecution. Thereafter, as the reply dated 1.10.2017 did not address the issue that is raised, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the complaint was filed. He also submits that the same is not barred by time. 6. As far as the issue of the height and size of the building is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner did not contravene the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, which only talks of a building, which is more than 15 metres in height. In the case on hand, the height of the building is less than 15 meters, there is no contravention of the law. However, a reading of Section 19 of the Act clearly shows that there is a two fold obligation cast upon the owner or occupier of the building or both. The first is that the owner or occupier shall provide fire safety measures and the second is that the owner or occupier shall maintain them in good repair, efficient condition at all times. Therefore, under Section 19 of the Act, the owner/occupier is duty bound to provide fire safety measures and also to maintain such fire safety measures in a good state of repair. The show-cause notice in this case clearly spelt out the deficiencies of open spaces, fire escape and the deficiencies in the fire fighting measures as per the National Building Code of India. Absolutely no material has been placed to show that these deficiencies have been pointed out. The correspondence between the parties including the letter dated 6.11.2017 addressed by Director General of State Disaster Response and Fire Services clearly shows that Section 19 of the Act has not been complied with. It was clearly stated that the fire safety measures are not being followed. 7. This Court, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor notices that what is stated by him carries substantial force. The show-cause notice dated 4.8.2017 listed out the deficiencies, particularly in the fire escapes and fire fighting equipment. The reply to the same merely concentrated on the height of the building. The petitioners did not answer the allegation with regard to Section 19 of the Act. The show-cause notice dated 4.8.2017 listed out the deficiencies, particularly in the fire escapes and fire fighting equipment. The reply to the same merely concentrated on the height of the building. The petitioners did not answer the allegation with regard to Section 19 of the Act. Even the subsequent correspondence ending with the letter dated 6.11.2017 from the Director General of Fire Services clearly specifies that the petitioners have not maintained the fire prevention and fire safety equipment as mandated by Section 19 of the Act. Apart from this, this Court also notices the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India, (2009) 6 SCC 398 . Although this was a decision rendered pursuant to the tragedy that occurred in Lord Krishna Middle School in Kumbakonam, when a fire took place in that school. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Para 22 held as follows: 22. Despite best intentions and frequent agreements, these codes and safety standards rarely bind builders in law or practice. State or local Governments must enact Building Codes before any may have the force of law. Some Building Codes exist in law, but few States or Municipalities have enacted a standard as rigorous as the National Building Code. Weak enforcement often then moots the enacted code's effectiveness, no matter the Code's intent, whether fire safety officials, routinely speak to the need for meaningful standards with real enforcement. (Emphasis supplied) 8. The case on hand relates to a hospital. Nevertheless the importance of fire safety and fire prevention measures cannot be over stated. The requirement for installation and the proper maintenance of the fire safety equipment is of paramount importance. Human life is too precious to be wasted due to negligence or carelessness of people. The show-cause notice has clearly detailed what are the deficiencies that are found in the building. During the course of the argument and when the matter was taken up for final hearing, no material was filed to show that the required open spaces are provided to permit the movement of fire safety equipment like a fire engine etc., nor was any material filed to show that fighting equipment is also not provided. The automatic sprinkling system, electric alarm systems are not provided. Terrace tanks, which required to be of 20,000 ltrs., capacity, but there is a deficiency of 9,500 ltrs. The automatic sprinkling system, electric alarm systems are not provided. Terrace tanks, which required to be of 20,000 ltrs., capacity, but there is a deficiency of 9,500 ltrs. In cases of emergency, each of these would play a crucial role. The deficiencies are enough to cause colossal damage in terms of human life. Despite the inspection and despite the notice, nothing has been filed before this Court to show that the requirements have been complied with. The risk involved in case of fire in multi-storeyed building cannot be understated. In matters of this nature, this Court cannot take a lenient view. Strict compliance is mandated. It is the duty of every owner/occupier/builder etc., to comply with the Act and the rules. Compromise can lead to catastrophe. 9. In a proceedings of this nature, particularly under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is bound to believe that whatever is stated in the show-cause notice is true. The opinions that are expressed in this case are, therefore, for the purpose of disposal of this petition only. It is left open to the petitioners to introduce adequate evidence to show that they have complied with all statutory requirements. It is also left open to the Court below to take an independent decision on its own; in this matter without being influenced by what is stated in this order. The fact remains that the available material does not lead to inescapable conclusion that an offence is not made out under Section 19 of the Act. The charge under Section 13 of the Act is dismissed. 10. Hence, for this reason the criminal petition is partially allowed quashing the charge-sheet insofar as Section 13 of the Act. Prosecution for the rest will continue. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.