PANVEL NAGARPALIKA PARISHAD PANVEL Vs. MUKUND L PHALKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by the appellant i. e. Panvel Nagarpalika Parishad, Panvel challenges the acquittal of the respondent-accused, Mukund Laxman Phalke, for the commission of offence under section 139 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965.

(2.) THE respondent-accuses is the owner of a medical store at Panvel. On 29th April 1980, two officials of the Panvel Municipal Council were on patrolling duty to check cases of illegal imports of suitable goods within the Municipal limits of Panvel. At about 6-00 p. m. when they were close to the shop of the appellant, is the bazar area, they saw 3 parcels of boxes been unloaded from an auto-rickshaw, realising that goods had been thus imported by the accused shop-keeper, these two officials Bhagat and Mumbaikar proceeded to make enquiries with the accused as to whether the octroi duty has been paid on these imported goods. It was found on enquiry from the accused that duty had not in fact been paid; therefore Gadkari, Senior Octroi Officer and the complainant herein was called. Complainant came to the shop and he was then shown the accused shop-keeper and the 3 packages as also the bills. Accordingly an appropriate octroi of Rs. 18. 70 ps. was recovered from the accused. Having regard to the liability of the accused to prosecution under section 139 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act for contravention of Octroi Rules, the Municipal Council issued a notice to him dated 4-6-1980 calling upon him to show cause why legal action should not be taken against him for evading octori duty. The explanation as called for and put up by the appellant was not satisfactory. The Octroi Officer Gadkari, therefore, filed the present complaint against the accused.

(3.) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the offence under section 139 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act as charged against him. At the end of the prosecution evidence and while offering his own explanation thereto in regard to the same, the accused took the stand that there was no evasion of octroi duty by him. According to him, his servant employed by him in the shop had been sent to S. T. Bus Stand for collecting consignments that were to have arrived. The servant took the consignments to the octori naka for payment of octori duty as due. However, when the octori duty was calculated a mere Rs. 18. 70 the servant realized that he did not have enough money to pay even that small sum. Therefore, he requested the octori naka karkun to permit him to take three boxes to the shop. He kept bills pertaining to these boxes with naka-karkun promissing that he would immediately return with the necessary amount. However, it was before he could go back to the octroi naka and pay the octori duty that the officers Bhagat and Mumbaikar had come there. Naturally at that time the accused did not have any receipt to show for having paid the octori duty. It was thereafter that he had sent the servant back to the octori naka. It was from there the servant had brought the bill which he had left there earlier. On the basis of these bills showing the value of the medicines and drugs octori duty was calculated and recovered from him. Therefore, there was no offence whatsoever committed by him.