KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. KOLHAPUR WINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this criminal revision application being aggrieved by the order dated 21-5-1992 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Revision Application filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, quashing the order of issuance of process passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Paranjape for petitioner and Mr. Galeria, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 3 at length. I have also perused the proceedings. It appears that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on number of occasions took the goods (liquor) within the limits of the Kolhapur City Corporation, without payment of any octroi, which was required to be paid to the petitioner Corporation. The petitioner, therefore, sent notice dated 21-11-1989 to respondents 1 and 2. However, there was no reply from their end. Therefore, second notice was sent to the respondents 1 and 2. However, again, there was silence from respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, petitioner from its own records, started enquiry, which was concluded on 25th December, 1989, and it was revealed that goods worth Rs. 32,81,260/- were transported without payment of any octroi on the said goods, and that, the amount of octroi which was payable on these goods was Rs. 1,64,062/ -. Petitioner therefore filed complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur on 16th of May, 1990. The learned Magistrate, after perusing the said complaint, issued process against the respondents 1 and 2, since accused had allegedly committed breach of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and the process was issued under section 398 r/w Rule 28 of the Octroi Rules of the Kolhapur Corporation.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2, being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process against them, filed Revision for getting it quashed. One of the grounds, it appears, taken by respondents 1 and 2 in their revision, was that the Commissioner, as per section 69 had to take prior approval of the Standing Committee before filing the complaint. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge accepted the said contention.