CANTONMENT BOARD, RANIKHET, ALMORA Vs. BABLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - Since the aforesaid applications under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. arise out of the same facts and the law governing the field is also the same, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment and order. 0482 Petition No. 382 of 2010 Cantonment Board, Ranikhet Vs. Bablu will be the leading case.

(2.) The applicants imposed fine upon the respondent alleging pig nuisance. The applicant served notices upon the respondents to deposit the amount of fine which was imposed by the applicant. The respondents did not do so. The applicant moved the applications under Sections 324of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act1) for realization of the fine. The said applications of the applicant were allowed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet vide orders dated 18.01.2010. Aggrieved against the same, criminal revisions were filed by the revisionists (respondents herein). Criminal revisions were allowed. Orders dated 18.01.2010 were set aside vide impugned judgements and orders dated 02.03.2010. Aggrieved against the impugned judgments and orders, present Applications under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C were filed by the applicants.

(3.) Learned Judicial Magistrate took the view that the Cantonment Board was empowered under Sec. 64 (1) (xxxiii) of the Act to impose fine upon the respondents, who refused to remove piggeries despite service of notices upon them by the applicant. Learned Judicial Magistrate also took the view that the applicants were empowered to do so under Sec. 324 (1) of the Act. The view taken by learned Judicial Magistrate was based upon the wrong premise, in as much as, Sec. 64 of the Act dealt with "Discretionary Functions of Board" and sub-clause (xxxiii) of sub-Section (1) of Sec. 64 dealt with "constructing and managing garages, sheds and stands for vehicles and cattle sheds". Sec. 64 of the Act, therefore, does not empower the Cantonment Board to levy fine.