JOHN HAMILTON CHRISTIAN Vs. TAPTI CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions of law and facts arise and the parties in all these applications are also the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the parties Advocates.

(2.) All these Revision Applications are directed against the judgment and order dated 8th June, 1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipality), Surat in respect of Municipal Case Nos. 24 to 1563 and 1574 to 2576 of 1987 whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaints holding them as barred by period of limitation contemplated under S.428 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 ("B.P.M.C. Act" for short) and S.468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Code" for short).

(3.) The respondent Nos. 1 to 7 (original accused Nos. 1 to 8) were carrying on business in partnership in the name and style of the accused No. 1 as distributor of Narmada Cement Company. (Original accused No. 2 has died). The accused No. 1 is a firm of which accused Nos. 3 to 7 are the partners and accused No. 8 is its Manager. Accused Nos. 2 to 7 are family members. The accused No. 1 used to purchase cement from Narmada Cement Co. LIMITED, and were selling to its different customers the said cement so brought from its cement factory at Magdalla, District Surat, through motor transport. Whatever goods were brought to Surat entered Surat City through different octroi check-posts and were delivered to different customers. Instead of paying octroi duty immediately the accused No. 1 firm has obtained a facility to open an account and pay the same after settling the accounts. Under the said facility, they were required to submit a declaration form and get the same entered with the concerned octroi check-post and obtain a credit pass therefore. At the end of the month the account was required to be settled in respect of goods that entered the town and pay octroi duty on the same. The accused No. 1 obtained necessary credit pass on submitting the declaration form duly filled in. However, with a view to avoid payment of octroi duty full price of the goods were not declared in the monthly statement at the time of monthly settlement of accounts. They have not paid the octroi thereon and have made Surat Municipal Corporation to suffer economically. Thereafter, requisition was issued under Rule 21 of the Octroi Rules and Standing Orders of Surat Municipal Corporation. However the same is also not returned duly filled in and thereby the accused have committed an offence for the breach of Rules 21 and 22 punishable under S. 28(1), 28(2)(a) and 28(2)(c) of the Octroi Rules. The accused also committed an offence under S.398 of the B.P.M.C. Act by intentionally not paying octroi duty. The accused are liable to pay ten times the amount of octroi duty not paid as penalty. The complainant came to know about the commission of offence on respective dates mentioned in the complaint.