LexCHAIRMAN OF THE BANKURA MUNICIPALITY versus LALJI RAJA AND SONS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 767 OHAIRM AN OF THE BANKURA MUNICIPALITY v. LALJI RAJA AND SONS. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and BHAGWATI JJ.] Calcutta High Court Rules, Part I, Chap . .11, R1!le 9-J,,ris- diction of Single Judge-"Order of fo1Jeiture of property"-For- feit1!re, meaning of- Order directing di,posal of 1inwholesome food under }1fonicipal laws- Whether forfeiture-Bengal Afonicipal Act, 1932, SS. 428, 431, 432. An order of a District Magistrate under ss. 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Act (XV of 1932) for the disposal of an arti- cle of food which has been seized under s. 428 of the said Act is not an order of forfeiture of property within the meaning of the pro- viso to rule 9 of Chap. II of Part II of the Calcutta High Court Rules, and a Single Judge of the said High Court has jurisdiction to hear a reference from such an order. Unless the loss or deprivation of property is by way of penalty or punishment for a crime, offence or breach of engage- ment it would not amount to a "forfeiture" of property. CtUMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1952. Appeal from an Order dated 18th January, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (Chunder J.) in Criminal Reference Case No. llO of 1951. N. 0. Talukdar antl A. D. Dutt for the appellant. Ajit Kumar Dutta and S. N. Mukherjee for the respondents. 1953. March 12. The Judgment of the Court was delivered hy BHAGWATI J.-This is an appeal under arti· cle 134(c) of the Constitution and raises the point whether a single Judge of the High Court of Judi- cature at Calcutta could hear a reference from an order under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Muni- cipal Act XV of 1932. 'rhe jurisdiction of a single Judge of the High Court in criminal matters is defined in the proviso to 1953 March lfl. 768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1953] 19/J3 Chairman. of the Bankura rule 9, Cb apter II, Part I of the. Rules· of the High Court and the relevant portion of the proviso runs as under:- v. Lalji Raja and Sons. Bhaawati J. "Provided that a single Judge may hear any Ap- peal, Reference, or Application for revision other than the following:- (1) One relating to an order of sentence of death, transportation, penal servitude, forfeiture of property or of imprisonment, not being an order of imprison- ment in defanlt of payment of fine ......................... " A single Judge therefore has no jurisdiction to deal with any reference or application for revision which relates to an order of forfeiture of property, and the question that arises in this appeal is wbenher the order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Bankura, under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, amounted to an order of for- feitu:·e of property within the meaning of the above proviso. 'fhe relevant facts may be shortly stated as follows. The respondents are ;he proprietors of several oil mills in the town of Dankura within the Bankura Municipality. The Sanitary Inspector of the Munici- pality received on 6th Marnh, Hl50, information that the Manager of the Bree Gonranga Oil Mill, belong- ing to the respondents had dep"osited about 300 ba.gs of rotten, decomposed, unwholesome mustard seeds in the courtyard of the Rice Mill of Bree Hanseswar Maji and about 600 bags of unwholesome mnstard seeds in the 1p.ill godown of the respondents for sale and for the preparation of oil therefrom for sale. On an application made by him in that behalf the 8ub- Divisional Officer, Bankura, duly issued a search war- rant and the Sanitary Inspector on the same day found in possession of the respondents a huge q uan- tity of mustard seeds which were found to be highly unsound, unwholesome and unfit for human consump- tion. He seized the said seeds between the 6th March, 1950, and the 8th March, 1950, and after the com- pletion of the seizure asked for written consent of the S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 769 respondents for destruction of t.he said mustard seeds which they refused. 'rhe Sanitary Inspector there- fore kept all the bags thus seized, viz., 951! bags, in the mill .godowns of the respondents with their con- sent. .After sever:ol proceedings which it is not neces- sary to mention for the purpose of this appeal, the District Magistrate, Bankura, in M. P. No. 58 of 1950 under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Act on the 14th Auguot, 1951, found that the stock of mustard seeds which was seized o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.