NOOR MOHAMMAD ROWTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 27-9-1954, the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, " convicted the accused in S.T. No. 434 of 1954 under Section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales-tax Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three weeks; As required by Section 15 (b) of the Act, the learned Magistrate also specified the amount of tax due from him as Rs. 1167-0. He further directed that- this amount was recoverable as it it were a fine. On 279- 1954, the. accused tendered a sum of Rs. 25 to the Court along with a memorandum making it clear that the payment was in respect of the fine imposed upon him; so far as the tax was concerned he prayed for a month's time to pay it. The learned Magistrate refused to allow that and passed the following order;

(2.) I am clear in my mind that the order of the learned Magistrate is erroneous. If a person is ordered by a court to make payments in respect of two items or matters, whatever the items or matters may be, then in the absence of any express provision in that regard the person who is required to pay, has the option of saying that the money tendered by him should be appropriated to a particular item or matter. Naturally a person making a payment would desire that the appropriation should be made" in the manner most beneficial or at any rate least injurious to him, and in the absence of clear authority in that behalf, a court has no jurisdiction to prevent him from making such an appropriation. In -- 'Yacoob Juma Khan v. Emperor, AIR 1931' Sind 73 (A), a case cited by the learned Sessions Judge, it was held as follows:

(3.) In the result the reference made by the learned. Sessions Judge is accepted and the order of the Magistrate set aside. The money paid by the accused will be appropriated in the manner desired by him.