GIAN CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gian Chand petitioner was found guilty under section 78 of the Punjab Municipal Act and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50/. An appeal presented by him having been dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, he has now filed the present petition for revision.

(2.) The complaint on behalf of the Municipality was that Gian Chand petitioner imported four cases of soap, weighing three maunds and 14 seers, from Delhi to Railway Station Patti, but failed to pay the prescribed octroi-duty even on demand. The Goods Clerk examined by the prosecution stated that the consignment reached Railway Station Patti on 13th January, 1954, and it was taken delivery of by Kashmiri Lal Dalal on behalf of the consignee on 19th January, 1954. The same day, the consignment, without having been removed from the railway station, was rebooked and despatched to Valtoha.

(3.) The Municipality demanded octroi on the ground that the goods reached and for about a week, remained lying at the railway station which was within the octroi limits of the city. The petitioner contended that the Municipality was not entitled to claim octroi, since the goods were rebooked and despatched to another station without being imported into the city. To constitute an offence under section 78 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 , the Municipality has to prove that the accused attempted to introduce or/introduce dutiable articles into octroi-limits with intent to defraud the Municipality of the octroi payable to it. Unless that intention is there, mere introduction of goods into octroi-limits without payment of the octroi would not constitute an offence punishable under this section. All that the evidence in the present case shows is that the petitioner imported the goods to Railway Station Patti, but did not attempt to introduce them into the city. The goods were rebooted from the railway station. In the circumstances, he could bona fide believe that he was not liable to pay any octroi. It is a moot point whether in that case too he was liable to pay the octroi. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner had the particular intention so as to bring his case within the mischief of section 78 of the Municipal Act.