LexTHE DARGAH COMMITTEE, AJMER versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 265 to murder even although this completed act would not, unless followed by the other acts, result in kil- ling. It might be the beginning of the attempt, but would nonetheless be an attempt". This supports our view. We therefore hold that the conviction of the appellant under s. 307, Indian Penal Code, is correct and accordingly dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed. THE DARGAH COMMITTEE, AJMER v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) Municipality-Costs incurred for repairs realisable by Commit- tee as tax-Magistrate entertaining application-If an inferior criminal court-Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation, r925 (Regulation VI of r925), ss. 222(4), 234. On the failure of the appellant to carry out the requisition by the Municipality to execute certain repairs to its property the Municipality carried out the said repairs after giving due notice, the cost of which became recoverable from the appellant as tax under s. 222(4) of the Ajmer Merwara Municipalities Regulation. The Municipality applied under s. 234 of the Regulation to the Additional Tehsildar and Magistrate, II Class, Ajmer for the recovery of the amount of cost incurred by them, and the magistrate passed an order calling upon the appellant to pay the dues. Against this order the appellant preferred a criminal revision application in the court of Sessions Judge which was rejected as there was no ground to interfere in revision. The appellant then moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdic- tion wherein the respondents raised preliminary objection that the criminal revision application filed by the appellant was incompetent since the Magistrate who entertained respondent No. 2 Municipal Committee's application under s. 234 was not an inferior criminal court under s. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Om Parkas!I v. State of PuHj11.b Raghubar Dayal j. April a~. 266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) z96I Code, the said objection was upheld and the criminal revision application dismissed on that ground. c D:irgah A. The question was whether the Magistrate who entertained ommi '" ;mer the application made before him by the Municipality under St 1 of~ . th s. 234 of the Regulation was an inferior criminal court under a • ayas ans. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and also whether an application under s. 234 could be made unless the rules were framed and the forms of the notice for making a demand under s. 222 were prescribed. Held, that the Proceedings initiated before a Magistrate under s. 234 of the Ajmer Merwara Municipalities Regulation were merely in the nature of recovery proceedings and no other questions could be raised in the said proceedings. The nature of the enquiry contemplated bys. 234 was very limited; it prima facie partook of the character of a ministerial enquiry rather than judicial enquiry and at the best could be treated as a pro- ceeding of a civil nature but not a criminal proceeding and the Magistrate who entertained the application was not an inferior criminal court. Whatever may be the character of the proceedings, whe- ther it was purely ministerial or judicial or quasi-judicial, the Magistrate who entertained the application and held the enquiry did so because he was designated in that behalf and so he must be treated as a persona designata and not as a Magistrate func- tioning and exercising his authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure. He could not therefore be regarded as an inferior criminal court. Held, further, that if the rules were not prescribed as requir- ed bys. 234 of the Regulation then all that could be said was that there was no form prescribed for issuing a demand notice, that did not mean that the statutory power conferred on the committee bys. 222(1) to make a demand was unenforceable and an amount which was claimable by virtue of s. 222(1) did not cease to be claimable just because rules had not been fram- ed prescribing the form for making the said demand. Crown through Municipal Committee, Ajmer v. Amba Lal, Ajmer-Merwara Law Journal, Vol. V, 92, Re Dinbai Jijibhai Khambatta, (1919) I.L.R. 43 Born. 864, V. B. D'Monte v. Band1a Borough Municipality, I.L.R. 1950 Born. 522, Emperor v. Devappa Ramappa, (1918) 43 Born. 607, Re Dalsukhram Hurgovandas, (1907) 6 Cr. L. J. 425 and Municipal Committee, Lashkar v. Shah- buddin, A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.