MUNICIPAL BOARD Vs. RAM SAHAI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case are that one Sahai Gupta, the opposite party in the present revision, wrote to the Municipal Board asking for certain information in respect of Octroi dues chargeable on a certain consignment of goods which he expected. On 19 March 1932, the Octroi Superintendent of the Municipality replied to that letter and intimated to Ram Shai Gupta that the goods mentioned in his letter were dutiable according to the octroi schedule. Ram Sahai Gupta filed an appeal on 2 April, 1932, in the Court of the District Magistrate of Benares purporting to file it under Secs.34 and 160 Municipal Act. The appeal was headed as follows: Ram Sahai Gupta, importer of electric goods, resident of Kotwalpara, Benares-Applicants. V/s. Municipal Board of Benares and B. Thakur Prasad Sharma, Octroi Superintendent, Municipal Board-Opposite Party.

(2.) On 12 May 1932, the District Magistrate of Benares passed an order to the effect that the imposition of octroi duty on the goods mentioned in Ram Sahai Gupta's letter was illegal. He was of the opinion that the goods mentioned in that letter were not liable to duty and those goods could not come under any vague definition such as hardware; and until the Municipal Board gets the schedule amended it had no right to detain or levy octroi on the said goods. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed by the Municipal Board. A preliminary objection has been taken by the opposite party, Ram Sahai Gupta, to the effect that no revision lies to this Court inasmuch as the District Magistrate, when he purported to decide Ram Sahai Gupta's appeal, was not acting as a criminal Court and under Section 435, Criminal P.C. the High Court can examine the record of proceedings before an inferior criminal Court only. It is further argued that under Section 164, Municipalities Act. Local Act 2 of 1916 the order of the District Magistrate confirming, setting aside or modifying an order in respect of valuation or assessment or liability to assessment or taxation is final. The contention on behalf of the applicant is that no appeal lay to the District Magistrate under the Municipalities Act against the letter of the Octroi Superintendent and if the District Magistrate entertained the said appeal he cannot be said to have acted under the Municipal Act, and the only capacity in which he could have acted was in the capacity of a criminal Court. I am unable to accede to the contention of the applicant and I think the preliminary objection ought to be sustained.

(3.) The Criminal Procedure Code in Section 6 says that besides the High Courts there shall be five classes of criminal Courts in British India, namely (1) Courts of Session, (2) Presidency Magistrate, (3) Magistrates of the First; Class, (4) Magistrates of the Second Class, (5) Magistrates of the Third Class, and it is obvious that these five Courts are inferior criminal Courts qua the High Court so far as Section 435, Criminal P.C. is concerned. Under Section 10, Criminal P.C., the Local Government appoints a Magistrate of the First Class in every district outside the Presidency towns who is called the District Magistrate. The powers of these Courts are well defined either tinder the Code or under rules made by the Local Government. There is perhaps a great deal of force in the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the District Magistrate in entertaining Ram Sahai Gupta's appeal usurped a jurisdiction which he did not possess, but there can be no doubt that he purported to act not under the Criminal Procedure Code or as an inferior criminal Court but under the powers which he thought he possessed under the Municipalities Act.