A K ROY Vs. EURAKA HOSE MFG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is directed against order dated 6-12-85 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Serampore in Complaint Case No. C/134 of 1984. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate has directed the complainant a public servant being a Provident Fund Inspector to pay Court fees on vakalatnama if he seeks to be representing by a learned. Advocate and also directed him to pay court fees on petition. Mr. Biswas, learned Advocate appearing for

(2.) THE petitioner has submitted that such payment of court fell is exempted under section 23, clause XIII of the W.B. court fees Act, which reads as follows: Complaint of a public servant (as defined in the Indian Penal Code) a Municipal Officer or an officer or employees of Government Railway is not chargeable under any of the provisions of the West Bengal Court fees Act. Mr. Biswas contended that since this provision enables a public servant to file a complaint without any court fee, this benefit should also be extended to the vakalatnama if filed on his behalf and also on petition filed by him. According to him, the principles underlying this exemption are identical. Section 23 has declared some documents being not chargeable with any fees under the provisions of the West Bengal Court fees Act. It necessarily follows that exemption specifically granted has only to be taken into consideration. No liberal construction to this can be applied because it also involved public revenue. Accordingly the view in this case. In case the complainant himself appears before the learned Magistrate, he can do so and he can file his application but on such application he will have to pay court fees. THEre being no other point pressed, this application is rejected. Application rejected.