SEANTILAL SUBSUKHLAL JAIN Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, WARASEONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition by the applicant -accused against his conviction under Section 199 of the Municipalities Act read with rules Nos. 9 and 25 of the Octroi Rules of the Municipal Committee of Waraseoni and the award of sentence of fine of Rs.30 each under two counts. His revision petition before the Additional Sesssions Judge, Balaghat, against the said conviction was rejected.

(2.) THE prosecution case, briefly stated is that on 2 -4 -1957 the accused -Appellant received three bales of cloth by railway and took delivery of the same at the Waraseoni railway station. It was alleged that as per octroi rules he should have given a declaration on the octroi post and paid octroi duty according to the rates, even though he may have subsequently exported the goods to mouza Kaidi. It was, therefore, alleged that he avoided to pay the octroi duty and, therefore, he was liable to be prosecuted. The plea of the accused -Appellant was that the delivery of the three bales was not taken by him but by his servant and, therefore, not being a person in charge of the goods he could not be prosecuted for not complying with the octroi rules. He further urged that as the goods were exported immediately without bringing them within the municipal area, there was no liability to pay any octroi duty. The trying Magistrate found against the accused and convicted him accordingly. He held that though the delivery was taken by the servant, the accused would in law be the person in charge thereof and even if the servant had not taken the goods to the octroi post and did not pay the octroi duty thereon on furnishing the necessary declaration thereof, he would be in law liable to be prosecuted. He also held that as the accused -Appellant had avoided payment of octroi duty, he was also liable to pay double the sum and having omitted to comply with the demand for payment of a double octroi duty, was also liable to be punished under Section 199 of the Municipalities Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the finding of the trying Magistrate.

(3.) I may here point out that Rule 9 has been amended on 5th May 1959 by addition of sub rule (d) to the said rule to the following effect: (d). In case the importer fails to give declaration as specified in Clause (e), it shall be presumed that the goods are imported in the municipal limits for use or sale or consumption therein and the octroi duty shall be payable thereon accordingly.