SHEIKH AJMERI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision from an order of the Sessions Judge upholding the conviction of the accused under Section 155 and Section 299, U.P. Municipalities Act. It appears that the applicant Sheikh Ajmeri, is a butcher residing in the city of Agra. Up to 1923, in addition to public slaughter-houses-situated within the city of Agra, there were private slaughter-houses outside the Municipal limits across the Jumna river, some 7 miles off. The site was acquired by the Municipal Board and then leasedi out to butchers who had their private slaughter-houses on the land. In 1923, by a notification in the Gazette, a small-area of less than 1 square mile known as Jharnanala was added to the Agra Municipality. This area does not actually adjoin the original Municipal limits and is a detached area quite separate from the old Municipal limits of Agra and there is a distance of about 3 miles in between. After the area became a part of the Municipality of Agra certain bye-laws were-framed for the regulation of the slaughter of cattle in the slaughter houses and for levying octroi duties.

(2.) On 29 October 1931 the accused's servants brought 22 heads of cattle to Jharnanala and on 30 October 1931 they brought 90 heads of cattle. As regards the 22 heads of cattle brought on the first day and 19 out of 90 heads of cattle- brought on the second day, no octroi receipts were forthcoming which would-show that these were imported into the city of Agra from outside and octroi duty had been paid thereon. There were receipts for the remaining heads of cattle-although they were more than three days old. According to the instructions issued by the Municipal Executive Officer, these receipts were not to be accepted if they were more than three days old. The accused's servants and afterwards the accused himself refused to pay the octroi duty on these cattle and also the slaughterhouse fees which are fixed under the bye-laws. It will be convenient to consider the convictions of the accused under the two sections separately. The first point-raised by Mr. Kunzru on behalf of the accused is that the notification of Government including the detached area within. the Municipal limits of Agra was itself illegal. His contention is based on the use of the singular number in the words " any local area" in Section 2(9) and Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. Although it is probable that it was never contemplated that detached areas should form part of one Municipality, we are unable to hold that there is anything in the Act which prohibits the combination of detached areas and which makes it compulsory that the entire area within the Municipal limits must be a compact area consisting of contiguous parts. Indeed Section 3(d) expressly provides that the Local Government may include or exclude any area in or from any Municipality, and it does not mention a contiguous area. It is therefore impossible to hold that the notification was in any way illegal, although there is also no doubt that much of the trouble has arisen because of including a detached area within the Municipal limits of Agra. The provisions for levying octroi duties are to be found in the Municipalities Act, in the Municipal Account Code as well as the bye-laws framed by the Agra Municipality, tinder Section 128(8) of the Act, a Board is authorised to impose taxes including "an octroi on goods or animals brought within the Municipality for consumption or use therein." Section 155 provides that a person introducing or attempting to introduce within octroi limits, or abetting the introduction within octroi limits of any goods or animals liable to the payment of octroi for which the octroi due on introduction has neither been paid nor tendered, shall be punished with a fine which may extend either to 10 times the value of such octroi or to Rs. 50, whichever is greater and which shall not be less than twice the value of such octroi.

(3.) The first contention urged on behalf of the applicant is that these sections would not apply to the trade in Jharnanala, because cattle are taken there for the purpose of making dry meat for export to Burma and other places outsidethe Municipal limits of Agra. It is contended that as cattle are not brought within the Municipality for the purpose of use or consumption, no octroi duty is leviable. We are unable to accept this contention. In the first place, it is not clear that the whole of the meat produced is exported outside the Municipal limits and none of it is consumed within such limits. In any case, the slaughter of cattle for the purpose of producing meat would be using them. The position is similar to that of importing raw material and converting it into finished articles. It must therefore be held that cattle imported in this way for! the purpose of being slaughtered in orderi that dry meat may be prepared, are cattle imported for use. This also disposes of the argument that the rules framed for assessment and collection of octroi on animals imported for consumption or use in the Agra Municipality would not be applicable. These rules in reality contemplate the case of a compact area into, which goods are brought from outside or through which they are transmitted. Admittedly there are no special rules-which are made applicable to this detached area of Jharnanala. It is the general bye-laws framed for the Municipality as a whole that are sought to be applied. Section 155 is a penal enactment and has to be construed strictly against the prosecution. The words introducing within octroi limits" in Section 155 and similar words "brought within the Municipality" in Section 128(1)(8) imply that goods or animals are imported from some place entirely outside the Municipal limits and brought inside such limits. They are not meant to cover a case of transit where goods are transferred from one part of the Municipality to another part within its limits. We think that this interpretation should be adhered to even if it so happens that owing to irregular boundaries of the Municipality or owing to the fact that a part of it is a detached area, the goods have to cross non-Municipal lands in transit. When goods or animals are removed from one mohalla of the Municipality to another, it is very difficult to say that they are being introduced within the octroi limits or that they are being brought within the Municipality from outside. They are really not being imported at all but are being transmitted from one part to another. The mere fact that for a short interval of time such goods or animals while in transit would be crossing the Municipal boundary and re-entering it would not for the purposes; of Section 155 alter the situation. No doubt in a strictly technical sense the goods can be said to pass out of the boundary limits and then re-enter. But, in our opinion, the significance of the words "introducing" and "brought in" is that they must, be imported from outside the Municipal limits altogether.