THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, MAINPURI versus KANHAIYA LAL

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 941 · Decided: 06-10-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
941 
and reasonable construction, they lead only to one 
1959 
conclusion and that is that the copies of the criminal Bibhuti Bhusan 
judgments or orders must bear the court fee stamp 
Chatterjee 
prescribed by Art. 9. That is the view .taken by the 
v. 
High Court consistently with the practice prevailing Thi s1a11 of Bihar 
in the High Court for several years. We are satisfied 
. 4 --:a
11 1 
that the view of the High Court and the practice Ga;en rac 
ar • 
prevailing there are wholly justified by the provisions 
of Art. 9. 
This question was raised before the 
Trava.ncore-Cochin High Court in James Paul Alexan-
der v. James Arthur Edwards (1) where the same view 
has been ta.ken about the construction of the cor-
responding article, Art. 10, of the Court Fees Act. 
We may add that there is some force in the conten-
tion raised by the appellant that the court fee 
prescribed by Art. 9 may sometimes work hardship 
on accused persons ; but that is a matter of policy 
with which we are not concerned. The Legislature 
may, however, consider whether it would not be 
appropriate to enact a suitable provision dealing with 
copies of criminal orders and judgments as has been 
done in Madras. The Madras Legislature has inserted 
Art. 6-A in Sch. I of the Act by Act V of 1922, pre-
scribing a uniform court fee of 8 as. for the copy or 
translation of a judgment or order of a criminal court. 
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. 
Appf.(ll dismissed. 
THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, MAINPURI 
v. 
KANHAIYA LAL 
(P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR and K. SuBBA. RAO, JJ.) 
Municipality-Toll-Vehicle carrying goods from one place lo 
another within municipal limits-Liability-U. P. Municipalities 
Act, I9I6 (U. P. Act No II of r9r6), s. rz8(r)(vii)~ 
The respondent was engaged by the Mainpuri Electric Supply 
and General Mills Co. Ltd., to carry coal from the Railway goods-
shed to its premises. He loaded his truck with coal at the goods-
shed and was carrying the same to the premises of the electric 
(1) I.L.R. 1953 T. C. 69. 
Jl!jl 
:r959 
Oclob1r 6 
I959 
TM Municipal 
Board, 1'.tainpuri 
v. 
Kanhaiya Lal 
Subba Rao]. 
942 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
company, both situated within the municipal limits. He refused 
to pay the toll tax when asked to do so at the toll barrier and 
was prosecuted under s. 299(1) of the Act. 
The Sub-Divisional 
Magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine of 
Rs. 67 /8. On appeal, the Sessions Judge affirmed the order of 
conviction and sentence. The High Court, in revision, set aside 
the conviction and acquitted him. The Municipality appealed to 
this Court by Special Leave. · 
Held, that the appeal must fail. 
Section r28(vii) of 
the 
Act rightly construed, clearly 
:ndicates that the municipal board's power to levy toll on convey-
ance is confined only to such vehicles as enter the municipality. 
The words,. entering the municipality" occuring therein show 
that a conveyance can be liable to the toll only when it enters 
the municipality from outside. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 88 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated August 23, 1957, of the Allahabad High 
Court, in Criminal Revision No. 54 of 1955, arising out 
of the judgment and order dated December 17, 1954, 
of the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in Criminal Appeal 
No. 291 of 1954, confirming the judgment and order 
dated July 13, 1954 of the Magistrate 1st Class, 
Mainpuri, in Criminal Case No. 20 of 1954, 
S. P. Sinha and B. R. L. Iyengar, for the appellant. 
The respondent did not appear. 
1959. October 6. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
SuBBA RAo J.-This appeal raises the question of 
true interpretation of s. 128 of the U.P- Municipalities 
Act, 1916, (hereinafter called the Act). The facts lie 
in a. small compass a.nd they are not in dispute. 
The State Government issued a. notification defining 
the municipal limits of the town of Mainpuri. Under 
this notification the goods-shed of the Ma.inpuri 
railway station is included within Ma.inpuri municipal 
limits, but the rest of the station .is excluded there-
from. A motora.ble road connects the station with 
the ma.in inhabited area. of the town. The Municipality 
fixed a. toll-barrier on this road between the ra.ilwa.y 
goods-shed a.nd the inhabited a.res. of the town. The 
S.C.R. 
SUPREM€ COURT REPORTS 
943 
Mainpuri Electric Supply and General Mills Co. Ltd., 
z9J9 
Mainpuri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.