TOWN AREA COMMITTEE Vs. TH NARSING SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal reference made by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Jammu dated 26-6-196s whereby he has recommended that the order of the Munsiff Magistrate, Samba dated 30-1-1962 be set aside.

(2.) THIS reference came up before me and I heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the parties did not support the order of the learned Magistrate and submitted that the order was illegal, the recommendation of the Addl. Sessions Judge was correct and should be accepted. I called an explanation from the Magistrate concerned. He has given a very lengthy explanation dated 18-3-1964. In view of the controversy raised by the Magistrate about the interpretation of Section 34 of the Town Area Act and the powers of the Magistrate to hold an inquiry as to what sum was actually due from the contractor respondent to the Town Area Committee, I thought it desirable to place this case before a Division Bench, The case, therefore, was heard by a Division Bench of this Court and as some important points of law were raised in this case, we heard the learned Advocate General also. The learned Advocate General also was of the view that the Magistrate's order was absurd and not in accordance with law and should, therefore, be set aside. In view of the lengthy explanation given by the Magistrate, we think it necessary to discuss this case. Further this reference could have been disposed of otherwise too on the admission of the learned Counsel for the parties as well as the learned Advocate General that the order of the Magistrate is erroneous,

(3.) THE learned Magistrate has tried to lay great emphasis on the difference in words used in Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 34 of the Town Area Act. According to him Sub-section (3) uses the words 'arrears of contract money due from a contractor' from which the Magistrate infers that he has the power to determine what is actually due from the contractor to the Town Area Committee after a thorough investigation of the claim. His second inference is that it is only from a contractor that the money can be recovered and that too must be arrears of contract money.