JUDGMENT
Guman Mal Lodha, J.
1. This criminal revision petition under section 379 read with Section 401 Cr. PC against the judgment of leared Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1981 dated 5th October, 1981 whereby he affirmed the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Jaipur City, Jaipur in case No. 2308 of 1975 dated 30-3-1981.
2. The complainant is U.I.T. and the offence with the accused is charged of making construction without obtaining permission in an area which is covered by number of schemes of the U.I.T.
3. During the course of the arguments, in this court, it was pointed out by Mr. A.K. Sharma that the so called approved scheme was never produced. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma counsel for the non-petitioner in reply to the above subsmision submitted that a letter was prodaced showing that the scheme was approved and number has been given and these numbers have found place in the judgment of the appellate court.
4. It is true that the number and date has been given in the judgment but it is equally true that a simple piece of paper, containing them has been produced in the appellate court for the first time.
5. In the judgment of the Court in Jitendra Kumar Rastogi v. U.I.T. 1980 (Volume 5 Rajasthan Criminal Cases 353) it has been held that such a scheme and its approval should be proved and material must be placed on the record to show that such a scheme of the trust and the plan was finally adopted by the Trust and was approved.
6. Similarly in another case reported in 1976 (Vol. 1) Rajasthan Criminal Cases U I.T. v. Madan Lal page 231 this court has held that when on account of non-compliance of notice punishment is made in a prosecution by the U.I.T. then it is necessary that scheme should be produced on the record which was framed by the Trust, relating to the area in which the building was constructed. Mere publication of notification issued by the State on the request of the Trust specifying the area for which the Trust decided to frame the scheme is not enough because what is covered under section 32 is a notification and not a scheme framed by a Trust for the urban area. The notification decides the decision of the trust to prepare a scheme and not the approved scheme.
7. In view of the above, it would not be in the interest of justice to discuss the facts any more because it is common ground that such a scheme and the notification approving scheme and publication of scheme has not been produced. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma prays that the case may be remanded because it concerns the organised planned development of the City of Jaipur and unauthorised construction if allowed to go unpunished by such acquittals, would result in great violence to the planned development of the city.
8. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner opposes the prayer of Mr. Kamlakar Sharma on the ground that the UIT is at fault for non-production of the scheme and, therefore, no second opportunity must be given by remand specially when the case has become old.
9. Having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel on this vital aspect of the case, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to permit the U.I.T. to produce the scheme because the planned development of City of Jaipur which is Capital of Rajasthan is of great public importance and omission and commissions by haphazard development and unauthorised constructions should not be ignored lightly.
10. Consequently, I allow revision application and set aside the judgment of the lower courts and remand the case to the trial court. Both the parties would be allowed to lead the evidence on this point and thereafter the judgment would be given afresh after hearing the parties according to law.