MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA versus THE COMMISSIONER OF PATIALA DIVISION, PATIALA AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 355 · Decided: 07-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA 
A 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER OF PATIALA DIVISION, PATIALA AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 7, 1994 
[B. P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR., JJ.] 
B 
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 : Section 116-Levy of fine 
for bringing or abetting the bringing of goods into octroi limits without 
payment of duty-Whether could be imposed only by a Criminal Court-
Held: Yes. 
Section 116 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 
provided for the levy of fine on any person for bringing goods or for 
abetting the bringing in of goods into octroi limits without payment of 
duty. 
c 
The imposition of fine by the Municipal Corporation was D 
challenged before the High Court and it held that the fine contemplated 
by S. 116 could be imposed only by a Criminal Court and not by an 
officer of the Municipal Corporation. Hence this appeal by the 
Munici:>al Corporation. 
Dismissing !he appeal , this Court 
HELD : 1.1 The High Court was right in holding that punishment 
of fine provided by Section 116 can be imposed only by the Criminal 
Court a.nd cannot be imposed by the Officers of the Corporation. 
[357 G) 
E 
1.2 The normal rule of legislative drafting is that wherever it says F 
that a particular Act shall be "punishable with fine", it contemplates its 
imposition by a Criminal Court only. Be that as it may, both Section 
116 and 388 speak of "punishable with fine". Section 388 provides not 
only for fine bui also for imprisonment. It cannot be suggested that the 
punishment of imprisonment contemplated by Section 388 can be 
awarded by the Officers of the Corporation. If so the punishment of G 
fine can also not be imposed by them. The same logic applies to S. 116 
as well. (357 F] 
Nitco Roadways Private Limited v. Municipal Corporation of 
Ludhiana C.W.P.No. 1804 of 1977 (P and H) Gian Chand v. The State 
(1958) Punjab Law Reporter 539, approved. 
H 
355 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No 8910of1994. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.87 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C. W. P. No. 2839 of 1987. 
S. K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta and Aman Vachher for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted. 
Section 90 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 empowers 
the Corporation to levy inter a/ia octroi. Sections 113 to 116 provide for the 
C 
levy and collection of octroi. Section 113 says that the octroi shall be levied 
at the rates specified by the Government. Section 114 obligates every 
person bringing or receiving within the octroi limits of any city any article 
on which th'! octroi is payable to allow the same to be inspected, examined 
and weighed by the officer of the Corporation and to communicate to the 
officer such. information or other documents in his possession as may be 
D 
called for by him. Section 115 provides that any person refusing to permit 
the officer to inspect, weigh or otherwise examine the goods being brought 
in shall be liable to be punished with fine which may extend to .Rs. 50. 
Section 116, which is relevant for our purposes, provides that any person 
bringing the goods or who abets the bringing of duty shall be punishable 
E 
with fine. The SectiQ.n reads as follows : 
· 
"116. Penalty for evasion of octroi. If animals or articles 
passing the octror limits of a corporation are· liable to the 
payment of octroi then every person who causes or abets the 
introduction of, or himself introduces or attempts to 
introduce within the said octroi limits any such animals or 
F 
articles upon which payment of the octroi due on such 
introduction has neither been made nor tendered, shall be 
punishable with fine which may extend either to twenty times 
the value of such octroi or to fifty rupees, whichever may be 
greater. " 
G 
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the fine 
contemplated by Section 116 can be imposed only by a Criminal Court and 
not by an Officer of the Municipal Corporation. The correctness of the said 
view is questioned. So far as the levy of octroi is concerned, there is no 
dispute that it can be assessed, collected and recovered by the Officers of 
the Corporation. Indeed it is generally collected at the point of entry itself. 
., 
H 
The only dispute is with respect to the levy of fine under Section I 16, 
• 
M. CORP., LUDHIANA v. COMM. OF PATIALA [B. P. J. REDDY, J.) 357 
which can extend either to twenty times the value o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.