PRASANNAKANT NILKANTH DAVE Vs. P BACHU NARSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are filed by Prasannakant Nilkanth Dave Octroi Inspector of Limdi Municipality against the same type of order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Limdi on 24-8-1978 in Criminal Cases nos. 504 of 1977 and 595 of 1977 respectively by which on three preliminary points raised on behalf of the respondent no. 1- accused in both the cases he dismissed the complaint filed by the present appellant and acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under secs. 123 228 and 125 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rule 18/2 of the Bye-laws of the Limbdi Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the Municipality). .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

(2.) After the evidence of the appellant-Octroi Inspector was over on behalf of the accused applications were given in both the cases contending inter alia that the complaints are prima facie time barred and therefore they should be dismissed. The second ground common in both the cases was that complainant (present appellant) had no legal right to file the complaints and therefore also the complaints should be dismissed. So far as the case against respondent no. 1-Company was concerned an additional point was raised that a complaint should be filed against a living person and no complaint can be filed against a Company and therefore also the complaint should be dismissed.

(3.) When these applications were given the learned Advocate on behalf of the Municipality in both the cases submitted that evidence was not completely led by the Municipality and the points cannot be decided so hurriedly but should be decided after the evidence is over. The learned Magistrate however thought that they are preliminary points which can be decided on the evidence adduced as they are points of law and there- fore proceeded to consider the objections raised and ultimately came to the conclusion that the Octroi Inspector was not authorised to file the com- plaints and therefore the complaints filed against the accused were bad. The learned Magistrate also came to the conclusion that the complaints were filed beyond the period of six months as provided under proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 246 of the Act and thirdly so far as the complain; against respondent no. 1-Company was concerned he came to the conclusion that such a complaint cannot be filed against a Company who is not a living person.