CHATURSING GOVINDJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was convicted under sec. 392(1)(b) read with sec. 164(b) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 In revision it is urged that the notice Ex. 6 issued under sec. 164 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act is not signed by the Deputy Health Officer although the Deputy Health Officer was delegated with powers to do so by the Commissioner of the Corporation. The notice however bore the rubber stamp of the Deputy Health Officer. A notice which merely bears a rubber stamp and does not bear signature of the person cannot be said to have been signed by that person. The learned counsel for the Corporation relies on sec. 2(56) of the General Clauses Act 1897 as amended which defines sign as follows:-

(2.) The definition extends the meaning of sign only in the case of persons who are unable to write their names and it is not suggested that the Deputy Health Officer is such a person. This section does not therefore help the Corporation. But section 476 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act reads as follows:-

(3.) In view of the section the stamp of the fascimile of the signature of the Deputy Health Officer amounts to his signature. The next point urged is that neither the Commissioner nor the Deputy Health Officer has formed an opinion as required under section 164 of the Act reads as follows:-