JOHN HAMILTON CHRISTIAN Vs. BLUE BIRD AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original complainant of Municipal Case No. 786 of 1982 which was pending on the tile of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal), Surat has by filing this Criminal Revision Application under Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.') challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of judgment dated 26th August, 1987 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal), Surat (who will be referred to hereinafter as 'the learned Magistrate') in aforesaid Municipal Case No. 786 of 1982.

(2.) Here in this present Criminal Revision Application, revision petitioner was the original complainant and revision opponent Nos. 1 to 5 were the accused Nos. 1 to 5 respectively in aforesaid case, and therefore, the parties will be referred to herein after as the complainant and respective accused persons respectively at appropriate places.

(3.) The facts leading to this Criminal Revision Application in a nutshell are as follows : On or about, 26th July, 1982, the original complainant who is serving as a Octroi Inspector in Surat Municipal Corporation, Surat, lodged his complaint against accused Nos. 1 to 5 who are the revision opponent Nos. 1 to 5 respectively, in this present Criminal Revision Application. As per the complaint, the accused No. 1 is a partnership firm and accused Nos. 2 to 5 are the partners in the said partnership firm i.e., accused No. 1. It is the case of the complainant that the accused No. 1-Partnership Firm had imported certain articles like Tooth Paste, Tooth Powder, Tooth Brush, Talcum Powder etc. etc. from one Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited from Bombay. It was doubted by the responsible officers of the Surat Municipal Corporation that the accused have not paid adequate and sufficient octroi for such articles imported by them in the City of Surat. On or about 8th December, 1981, the Octroi Officer of Surat Municipal Corporation addressed one letter to Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. requesting them to furnish particulars with regard to goods and value thereof, imported by the accused No. 1 during the period from April, 1980 to November, 1981. In response to said letter dated 8th December, 1981, the Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. furnished certain particulars in three different statements under covering letter dated 5th January, 1982. On the basis of that letter received from Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., the Surat Municipal Corporation addressed another letter dated 27th January, 1982 to the accused No. 1 directing the accused No. 1 to furnish the particulars with regard to goods imported during the period from 1st December, 1979 to 31st December, 1981. It is the case of the complainant that the accused No. 1 did not furnish sufficient particulars, and therefore, there was an exchange of letters in between the Surat Municipal Corporation on one side and the accused No. 1 on other side. In continuation of that correspondence in between the Surat Municipal Corporation and the accused No. 1, the accused No. 1 requested Corporation to grant certain further period so as to enable the accused No. 1 to furnish particulars but that request was refused by the Corporation. Thereafter, in exercise of powers conferred upon the Commissioner or the Officer in charge in that behalf, the Surat Municipal Corporation issued a requisition as per Rule 21 of the Surat Municipal Corporation Octroi Rules (same will be referred to hereinafter as the "Rules" for the sake of convenience) which have come into force with effect from 10th November, 1975. That requisition was received by the accused on or before 7th June, 1982. It was required by the accused to furnish the particulars within seven days from the date of receipt of the requisition. It is the case of the complainant that the accused have failed to famish the particulars as per requisition made under Rule 21 of the said Orders, and therefore, on or about 6th July, 1982, the complainant lodged his complaint against the accused for an offence punishable under Sec. 398 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (the same will be referred to hereinafter as the "B.P.M.C. Act" for the sake of convenience), and also under Rule 28 of the said Rules for contravention of Rules 21 and 13(1) of the said Rules and also for the offence punishable under Rule 19 of the said Rules for contravention of Rule 6 of the Standing Orders.