Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1953 (3) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r II, Part I of the Rules of the High Court and the relevant portion of the proviso runs as under :- Provided that a single Judge may hear any Appeal, Reference, or Application for revision other than the following :- (1) One relating to an order of sentence of death, transportation, penal servitude, forfeiture of property or of imprisonment, not being an order of imprisonment in default of payment of fine ...... 3. A single Judge therefore has no jurisdiction to deal with any reference or application for revision which relates to an order of forfeiture of property, and the question that arises in this appeal is whether the order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Bankura, under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municip .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct Magistrate, Bankura, in M.P. No. 58 of 1950 under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Act on the 14th August, 1951, found that the stock of mustard seeds which was seized on the 6th March, 1950, was on that date and still was unfit for human consumption. But in so far as no oil was coming out of the seeds and the seeds were capable of being used as manure or for cattle-food he would not direct their destruction but directed that they should be disposed of by the commissioners of the Bankura Municipality as manure or as cattle-food ensuring before such disposal that the stocks in question had been rendered incapable of being used as human food. The respondents field a petition under section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code befo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... seized under section 428 is not destroyed by consent under sub-section (1) of section 429, or where an article of food so seized which is perishable is not dealt with under sub-section (2) of that section, it shall be taken before a Magistrate as soon as may be after such seizure. (2) If it appears to the Magistrate that any such living thing is diseased or unsound or that any such food or drug is unsound, unwholesome or unfit for human food or for medicine, as the case may be ......he shall cause the same to be destroyed at the expense of the person in whose possession it was at the time of its seizure, or to be otherwise disposed of by the Commissioners so as not to be capable of being used as human food or medicine .... Section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lesome or unfit for human food or medicine or the otherwise disposal of the same by the Commissioners so as not to be capable of being used as human food or medicine. The vesting of such condemned food or drug in the Commissioners which is provided by section 432 is with a view to facilitate the destruction or the otherwise disposal of such food or drug by the Commissioners and is in no way a forfeiture of such food or drug by the Municipality. The condemned food or drug by reason of its being found unsound, unwholesome or unfit for human food or medicine cannot be dealt with by the owner. It must be destroyed or otherwise disposed of so as to prevent its being used as human food or medicine. What the Municipal Commissioners are empowered t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, which constitutes what is contemplated under section 431(2), a penalty or punishment for the commission of a crime or offence. The offence that the respondent could be charged with is defined in section 421 of the Act and the punishment for that offence provided in section 500 is fine and not forfeiture. 10. We are therefore of the opinion that the order of the District Magistrate, Bankura, under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, dated 14th August, 1951, was not an order of forfeiture of property within the meaning of the proviso to rule 9, Chapter II, Part I, of the Rules of the High Court, and Chunder J. had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the reference. The result is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates