BASHIRUDDIN ASHRAF versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 1032 · Decided: 25-04-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1957 
Flu Member for l/u 
Board of 
Agrici.:ltural 
Income Tax, A.Ham 
v. 
Smt. Sindhurani 
Chaudhurani 
Kapur J. 
1957 
Apil, 25 
1032 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
fl957] 
but it appears that she could not be served and given 
notice of the hearing of the appeal and, therefore, 
although her appeal is allowed, as it is based on a point 
com,non to other appeals, the parties will bear their 
own co'ts in that appeal. 
Appeal No. J(,2 of 1955 dismissed. 
Appeals Nos. 38 to 44 of 7956 allowed. 
BASH!RUDDIN ASHRAF 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
( S. R. DAS C.J., JAF!'AR IMAM, s. K. DAS, GOV!NDA 
MENON and A. K. SARKAR JJ.) 
i\!t!tatvalli-A.fajlis, 
powers 
of-Budgct-Mutatva//i's 
fai/u,·e 
to prcpart• and send copy to Afaj/is-Coni·ictio'1-Validity-Sentence 
of fine, in default imprisonment-Legali:y-l?ihar TVaqfs Act, 1947 
(Bi*ar Act 8 of 1948), ss. 58, 65-Con.ctitution 
of India, Art.,. 
19 (!) (g). 
The appellant failed to prepare a bud_gct of the Waqf Estate 
of \Yhich he \Vas the mutawalli, for the year 1952-53 and send a 
copy of it to the Majlis· before J:-inuary 15, 1952, :is he was hound 
to Jo unJt•r s. 
58( I) 
of the llihar 
Waqfs Act, 
1947, 
ond \•:as 
convicted hy the Magistrate under s. 
6--5( I) 
of the 
J\ct 
:inJ 
stntcncc<l to pay a fine of Rs. iOO, in default to nn(~crgo fifteen 
cbyc; 
-~iriplc imprisonment. 
It was contended for 
him that the 
con\·iction and sentence \Vere nor \·al id ber:iuse (I) s. ;g l)[ thi.: 
Act contravened Art. I9(1)(g) of the Constilution of India, :?.'i 
it 
g:ivc unrestricted po\ver to the Majlis to alter or modify the 
budget prepared by the muta\valli without a right 
of 
appc:II 
against the action of the ?i.1ajlis and so in1poscd an unreasonable 
restriction on the muta\valli in 
c1rrying on 
hi.o; 
occup:ition as 
such, :Ind (2) s. 65 of the 
Act did not provide for any impri~on­
ment in default of payment of fine. 
lleld, that 
hav1ng regard to the fact 
th:-it 
a 
muta\\':tlii 
occupies the position of a man:igcr or custodian and 
the 
supervi-
sin:i over him by the :tvfaj!i<; with the respect to due administration of 
the \vaqf property is neccss:iry and that the 11owers of the !'vfajlis 
to olter or modify the budget prepared by the mutawalli are 
controlled by sub-s. ( 6) of s. 58 of the Act. 
the 
restrictions 
imros-:d by 
s. 
58 of the 
Act on 
the 
exercise 
of his powers 
·' 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1033 
by 
a mutawalli 
are 
reasonable. 
Accordingly, 
the 
provisions 
1957 
of s. 58 of the Act do not offend Art. 19 (I) (g) of the Constitution. 
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Bashiruddin Ashraf 
Lakshmi·1dr.i Thirt!ia Swamiar of Sri Shirnr Jlutt, 
(195-t) S.C.R. 
v. 
1005, rdic<l on. 
Thi State of Bihar 
The order of the 
Magistrate providing for imprisonment 
in 
default of payment of fine is not invalid in ,·icw of s. 33 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure read with ss. 40 and 67 of the Indian 
Pena! Code. 
CRIMWAL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 39 of 1955. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated January 28, 
1954, of the Patna High 
Court in Criminal Revision No. 69 of 1954 arising out 
of the judgment and order dated November 23, 1953, 
of the Sessions Judge, Patna, in Criminal Appeal No. 
288 of 1953 against the 
judgment and order dated 
August 27, 1953, of the Munsif Magistrate of Patna 
Sadar. 
Murtaza Fazl Ali, and R. C. Prasad, for the appel-
lant. 
S. P. Varma, for respondent No. 1. 
1957. 
April 25. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
deli·;m:d by 
h!A!-.1 J .-The appellant was removed from his 
position as mutawalli of Gholam Yahia Waqf Estate 
on September l, 1951, by an order passed by the Majlis 
constituted under the Bihar Waqfs Act, 1947 
(Bihar 
Act 8 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He 
appealed to the District Judge of Monghyr, as he was 
entitled to do under the provisions of the Act, and the 
operation of the order of removal passed by the Majlis 
was stayed by the District Judge pending the hearing 
of his appeal. A complaint against him was filed in 
th.:: 
Court of 
the 
S;td:ir Sub-Divisional 
Magistrate, 
Patn:i, on Julv I. 1952, by Mahommad Samu:il, Nazir 
of the Maili~. on the order of its Sadar. It was alleged 
in the co;1plaint that it was the duty of, the appellant 
to prepare a budget of the waqf estate of which he was 
a mutawalli, under s. 53(1) of the Act, for the year 
Imam]. 
1957 
Bashituddin Ashref 
v. 
Thi State of Bihar 
Imam]. 
1034 
SUPREME COU

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.