STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHRINIWAS B SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for municipal cases at Sholapur, in favour of the accused Shriniwas B. Soni, who was charged with an offence under section 94 r/w section 193-A of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The case for the prosecution was that the accused was a yearn dealer doing business within the municipal limits of Sholapur. Suspecting that a large number of bales of yearn were imported by the accused and brought within the octroi limits of Sholapur Municipality, without payment of octroi chargeable thereon the Chief Officer of the Municipality by notice (Ex. A) dated 24th July 1962, called upon the accused to supply to him information about the number of bales of yarn imported by him during the period from 1st April 1961 upto the date of the notice and other information in connection with those bales. The Octroi Superintendent reported to the Chief Officer on 21st August 1962, that no reply to the aforesaid notice was received from the accused. The Chief Officer then applied for necessary sanction as required by the Municipal Boroughs Act to prosecute the accused and this sanction was obtained on 27th August 1962. the present complaint was then filed by the Municipal Prosecutor narayan Keshav Shinde on 1st September 1962, charging the accused with an offence under S. 94 read with section 193-A of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the notice issued by the Chief Officer dated 24th July 1962, was vague and that, therefore, the accused was not bound to send the information called for by that notice. The learned Magistrate accordingly held that the accused was not guilty of the offence charged against him and acquitted him thereof. It is against this order of acquittal that the State has filed the present appeal in this Court.

(2.) IN support of this appeal is was urged by Mr. Vaidya, the learned Asstt. Government Pleader, that the learned Magistrate was entirely in error in holding that the notice by the Chief Officer was vague. He contended that the notice in question was given in strict compliance with the provisions of section 94 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act and that the Chief Officer had not called for any particulars from the accused, which were not warranted by the terms of that section. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to reproduce the notice at this stage.

(3.) IT clearly appears from the wording of the section that not only an office authorized by the Chief Officer but also the Chief Officer of the borough Municipality himself has power to call upon a person bringing into or receiving within the octroi limits of a municipal borough, any goods on which octroi is payable, to communicate to him any information relating to such goods, in order to enable him to ascertain the amount of tax chargeable on such goods. Such information in the present case would necessarily include the number of bales and the count of yarn. It will also include the date on which the bales were imported and the price of each bale. It will also include the number of the bill issued by the vendor of the bales together with its date and the total amount paid or payable in respect thereof. Such information in case of any octroi having been paid, would also include the receipt number of such payment and the date thereof. Thus, so far as the notice in the present case is concerned, the information specifically required to be furnished by the accused in respect of the bales alleged to have been imported by him during the period mentioned in the notice does not go beyond the scope of S. 94 (1) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act. It is, therefore, difficult to understand as to how the learned Magistrate could be of the view that the notice issued by the Chief Officer to the accused was vague. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate was not right in holding that the notice was vague and that therefore the accused by failing to comply with that notice had not committed any offence under S. 193-A of the Act.