TMI Blog1960 (12) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down that one remedy was to the exclusion of the other, the observations of Mahmood, J., quoted above must apply. In our opinion, in the absence of any such provision in the Act, both the remedies were open to the authorities, and they could resort to any one of them at their option. - Civil Appeal No. 279 of 1959, O.P. No. 87 of 1956 - - - Dated:- 12-12-1960 - KAPUR J.L. AND HIDAYATULLAH M. AND SHAH J.C. JJ. Dr. A.V. Sayed Muhammad, Advocate, for the appellants. Respondents, Ex parte. -------------------------------------------------- The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. -This is an appeal with the special leave of this Court against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated Nov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be realised from A1 to 4, jointly or severally, individually or collectively under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code for realisation of criminal fines, as if it were a fine imposed by this Court on each accused individually and all of them together. Take steps for the realisation." Warrants under section 386(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were issued to the Collector of Kottayam District for recovery of the arrears of sales tax. The authorities, however, started proceedings again under section 13 of the Act read with the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951 (VII of 1951), to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue, and attached some properties belonging to the respondents within the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay...and the tax...so specified shall be recoverable as if it were a fine under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the time being in force." In dealing with the question, the learned Judges of the High Court felt that section 13 of the Act was in the nature of a general law, over which the special procedure prescribed by section 19 of the Act read with section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to prevail. They, however, thought that, since all the processes available under section 19 of the Act were also available under section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was not necessary to decide what would happen if the proceedings under section 386 came to nothing. They observed that if the question arose, they would cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
