MUNICIPAL BOARD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut recommending that the order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate on the 5th of April, 1954, in a summary trial in relation to an offence said to be punishable Under Section 155 of the U.P. Municipalities Act should be set aside and that a fresh trial should be ordered.

(2.) A complaint was filed by the Municipal Board of Meerut through Sri R.K. Sharma the Octroi Inspector Under Section 155 of the U.P. Municipalities Act contending that on the 5th of March, 1953, Kashi Ram was detected introducing within the Meerut Octroi limits certain bails of cloth, which were liable to an Octroi duly of Rs. 98/1/9 surreptitiously without the payment of the Octroi duty. The case was tried summarily by a Magistrate who convicted Kashi Ram and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500/-. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Magistrate and directed that the case be retried by another Magistrate. The reason assigned in support of that order was that on the judgment of the learned Magistrate it did not appear as to how many witnesses were produced before him, what were their (sic) and what was the substance of their statement and the lower appellate court was therefore not in a position to judge as to whether the trial court had properly applied its mind to the case. At the retrial before another Magistrate Kashi Ram was acquitted on the 5th of April, 1954, on the ground that the complaint alleged that the offence was committed on the 5th of March, 1953, but Sri Raj Kishore Sharma the Octroi Inspector stated in evidence that the offence took place on the 26th of February, 1953. As against the order of acquittal the Municipal Board has come up in revision.

(3.) The first question which has got to be considered is whether in the case of an acquittal when no appeal has been filed by the State Government Under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court ought to interfere in revision. Ordinarily the court will not interfere in revision, but there is no legal bar if a proper case comes before it on reference Under Section 438 to entertain a prayer of this nature. A similar view has been taken by this Court in Emperor v. Ram Deo,1942 AWR 285. It has therefore to be seen if the present case is a proper case where interference is called for. The complaint that was filed on behalf of the Municipal Board was to the effect that the offence was committed on the 5th of March, 1953, when there was the non-payment of Octroi duty. At the second trial the record of proceedings of the summary trial shows that under the heading "offence complained of" the accused was faced to meet the following circumstances: