TRILOK CHAND Vs. C N SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is the owner of a cinematograph; he gave exhibitions by means of it in a building not licensed under the U. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act (Act 3 of 1956) and was prosecuted under Section 8 of the Act for infringement of the provisions of Section 3. He was convicted on 26-2-1958 and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/- and was "further sentenced under the above sections in the case of continuing offence to a fine of Rs. 100/- for each day during which the offence shall continue". This judgment was passed against him by Sri K.C. Sinha, a first class Magistrate. The applicant filed an appeal which was dismissed and the judgment was confirmed. He did not come up in revision against that judgment. Since the applicant was further sentenced to a daily fine Sri C.M. Srivastava, successor of Sri K.C. Sinha, got an enquiry made from the Inspector who reported that the applicant, continued giving exhibitions by means of a cinematograph upto 31-3-58. Consequently on 24-6-1959 Sri C.N. Srivastava passed the order, now sought to be revised, issuing a warrant of levy of Rs. 3400/- as the amount of the further fine to which the applicant was sentenced on 26-2-1958. The period from 26-2-1958 to 31-3-1958 was computed to be thirty four days.

(2.) There is no force in the applicant's contention that Sri C.N. Srivastava had no jurisdiction to pass the order of levy of fine and that he could' not do so without issuing a notice to the applicant. Sri C.N. Srivastava only executed the order passed by his predecessor, Sri K.C. Sinha. The order of Sri K.C. Sinha was bound to be executed and since Sri C.N. Srivastava took up all the work left by him he was competent to execute the order. No. question of any hearing or of issuing a notice to- the applicant arises because there is no law that requires that a notice should be given before a warrant of levy of fine is issued against 'the person' sentenced to fine. The applicant was bound to pay the fine at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day during which the offence continued. If he disputed that the offence continued or that it was continued for so many days he "could object to the attachment of his property but the attachment does not become illegal' because he was not heard before the warrant was issued.

(3.) The real question however is whether the order of Sri K.C. Sinha imposing a further daily fine of Rs. 100/- treating the offence as a continuning offence was correct. If the offence was not a continuing offence he had no jurisdiction to impose it and Sri C.N. Srivastava would have no jurisdiction to recover it or to issue a warrant of levy. If it was without jurisdiction, Sri C.N. Shivastava was bound to refrain from enforcing it. Actually if the offence was not a continuing offence, Sri C.N. Srivastava was bound to find that it did not continue for any day after 26-2-1958. If the offence was not a continuing one, it could not be continued at all and even if Sri K.C. Sinha imposed a daily fine treating it as a continuing offence, when Sri C.N. Srivastava proceeded to calculate the amount of the tine to be realised he should have found that the offence did not really continue at all and that consequently no amount was due from the applicant. If instead he found that Rs. 3,400/- were due from him it would be an illegality which can be revised by the court.