LexKESHO RAM versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
KESHO RAM
v.
DE'LHI ADMlNISTRATION
April 3, 1974.
[M. H. BEG AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.J
827
Dl'lhi }.fu11icipa: Corporation Act 1957-Ss. 154, 155 & 161 read wit/: Secs.
353/332 3330/ l.P.C.-Whet/ler seizure and detention of animal u/s 161 posJible
1ritlzout 11otice 11/s. 154 for recoW.'ry·af mHk tax-If notice Optional.
The appellant was convicted u/s 353/332/333 of the Indian Penal Code
a.nd was sentenced accordingly.
The prosecution case was th:it tlte appellant
obstructed 3 inspectors and a peon of the Delhi Municipal Corporation, when
they went to seize the appell'ants' ·buffalo in the discharge of their duty to realise
the milk tax· from him and struck one of the officers on the nose with
the
result that it bled and was found fractured.
The main contention of the · appeUant was that the attempt to realise the
arrears of milk. tax and recovery charges was illegal because no demand notice
under Sec. 154 of the Act was served on the appellant, and therefore, he hitd
the right of private defence.
The
0
pr~secution relied on Sec. 99 Indian ·Penal Code which provideii that
there is no right of priVate defence against an act of a public servant. done in
.!?ood faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justi-
fiable bv law. Further according to the prosecution, Sec. 161 of the Act
empowered the Inspector of the Corpo'ration. to, seize and ~n10 ... ·e the appetla.nt's
buffalo for non-payment of tax and the sect.Ion gave them an over-riding power
to resort to seize and detention of the artimaJ. Therefore, according to the
prosecution, the appellant .was guilty of the offences charged.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: (1) AithouJ?h the interpretation placed by the High Court
that
seizure and detention of a vehicle or an animal is possible under sec. 161
at
an\.1ime after the tax. ha~ become due' when read in the light of other provisions
of the Act. it has to be remembered that section 161 would become the repository
:'.>f a rather· drastic power of .actinp; without previous notice to seize- any animal
or vehicle at anv time after 'the tax b~came due. and thereby, of seriously iniurin~
c\'en innocent individuals who mav have every intention and the capacity to
par the· demanded tax, but may 'have 'defaulted only by some oversight and
may be unable to produce the required money on the spot.
It is well settled
that out of two possible internationals, the one which confines the content of
such oower of seizure to reasonable limits and fair modes of operation should
be preferred. [831 DJ
Therefore. although Sec. 161
of the Act can be used 'at any time', agaipst
a defaulter, yet a defaulter in view of secs. 154 and 155 of the Act would be a
person who refuses to pay within a period specified in Sec, 155 of the Act after
a notice of demand u/s. 154 of the Act. Although the demand of notice is
optional, yet, but the option has to be exercised if it is intended to invoke the
powers contained in sec. 161. [8,31 F]
(ii) The Inspectors were acting honsetly in exercise of the powen~ delegated
to them, but they had erred in the exercise of their PoWers. They, however,
cannot be presumed to know that a notiee under sec. 154 must precede any
attemot of seizure.
Therefore. there waS no legal defect which. vitiated their
action<;. Sec. 99, therefore. did confer a protection upon the employees of the
Corporation who acted in good faith under_ the colour of their office. But 11ince
they acted in an improper manner in demanding
immediate payment,
the
sentences imoosed upon the appellant were oxcessive. The sentences, therefore,
were reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant but the convic-
tions were upheld. The fine imposed upon the appellant \'{as also set aside ..
[832 A-CJ
I '
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
11974) 3 s.c.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuR1so1cno:-i: Criminal Appeal No. 199 of
[ l) 10.
Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and order dated the
l 2ch November, 1969 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in
Criminal Apeal No. 103 of 1968.
Harba11s Singh. for the appellant.
(Jovi11d Das, for the respondent.
Ihe Judgment of the Court. was delivered by
BEG, J.-The High Court or Delhi had confirmcd·tho conviction
.. of the appellant under Section 353/332/333 of the Indian
Penal
Cod~, nnd a sent.~nce of one year's regorous imprisonment on each
, count, and also to be fine of Rs. 400/-, and, in default of Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.