TRILOK CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three criminal revisions came up for hearing before mo on 30-5-1952, when I found it necessary to refer two questions of fact to the lower Court for determination. The findings on those two points have now been received from the learned Magistrate and learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

(2.) In the town of Faridnagar in the district of Meerut there is a Town Area Committee. It has framed bye-laws purporting to act under Sections 293 and 298 (2) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, as applied to town areas under Section 88 of the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914. Clause (i) of these bye-laws provides that there shall be imposed Tehbazari at the rate of one anna per seer upon Kotogem and Vanaspati. Clause (2) provides that the fee aforesaid shall be paid to an officer appointed for this purpose by the Committee or to a thekadar to whom the theka for the collection of these dues might be given by the Committee. Clause (3) provides that the aforesaid fee shall be paid on the import of the Vanaspati or Kotogem within the limits of the Town area. Clause (4) requires that the vendors of Vanaspati and Kotogem shall take a licence from the Committee. Clause (5) provides that no one who has not taken out a licence shall be entitled to sell Kotogem or Vanaspati. Clause (6) provides for a certain procedure for the grant of the licence. Clause (7) provides that the vendors of Vanaspati and Kotogem shall put up a sign-board at their shops and shall keep their shops in a sanitary condition. Clause (8) provides that if a consumer or a vendor brings or imports Vanaspati or Kotogem within the limits of the Town Area then he shall have to pay the aforesaid duos but if anyone purchases Vanaspati or Kotogem from a vendor within the limits of the Town Area then no tax shall bo payable. Clause (9) provides that the contravention of these bye-laws shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 200.

(3.) In Criminal Revision No. 1175 of 1950 the applicants are Trilok Chaud and Mool Chand. The charge against them was "under Section 298 (2) 1B/293 (1) of the Municipalities Act and Bye-law No. 9, dated 24-4-1945 of the Town Area." The finding of the learned Magistrate is that the accused did not pay the tax nor did they maintain the accounts properly. They were, therefore, sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 each or in default to undergo three days' rigorous imprisonment. They went in revision and contended that the Town Area had no authority to frame the bye-laws under which the tax was levied. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed this contention with the remark that it was not shown to him as to how the imposition of the tax was ultra vires and the point was not raised in the lower Court. In this Court the contention is repeated that the bye-laws are ultra vires.