Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LUDHIANA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE COMMISSIONER OF PATIALADIVISION, PATIALA AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT07/12/1994
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (1) 304 JT 1995 (1) 405
1994 SCALE (5)123
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
1. Leave granted.
2. Section 90 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act,
1976 empowers the Corporation to levy inter alia octroi.
Section 113 to 116 provide for the 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 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 maybe 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 r to
Rs.50/-. Section 116, which is relevant for our purposes,
provides that any person bringing the goods or who abets the
bringing in of goods into octroi limits without payment of
duty shall be punishable with fine. The Section reads as
follows;
" 116. Penalty for evasion of octroi.- If
animals or articles passing the octroi 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 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. "
3. 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Corporation. The correctness of the said view is
questioned. So
407
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 col-
lected at the point of entry itself The only dispute is with
respect to the levy of fine under Section 116, which can
extend either to twenty times the value of the octroi evaded
or attempted to be evaded or Rs.50/-, whether is higher.
4. Section 113 to 116 occur in Chapter-VII dealing with
’Taxes’. Indeed there are other provisions in the Act which
provide punishment for certain offences created by the Act.
Reference may be made to Section 388 which says that whoever
contravenes the provisions specified therein "shall be
punishable (1) with fine which may extend to the amount, or
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to the period,
specified in that behalf ...."
Section 394-A says:
"394-A. Prosecutions.- Save as otherwise
provided in this Act, no Court shall try any
offence made punishable by or under this Act
or nay rule or any bye-law made thereunder,
except on the complaint of or upon information
received from the commissioner, the Executive
Officer the Medical Officer of Health, the
Municipal Engineer (Electricity) or any othe
r
officer of the Corporation authorised by it in
this behalf."
5. It appears that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has
consistently taken the view that the imposition of fine
under Section 116 (and the corresponding provision in the
preceding enactments) can be only by a Criminal Court vide
Nitco Roadways Private Limited v. Municipal corporation of
Ludhiana (C.W.P. No.1804 of 1977) disposed of on Act
September, 1965 and Gian Chand v. The State (1958 Punjab Law
Reporter 539). We are of the opinion that the said view is
correct in law. The normal rule of legislative drafting is
that wherever it says 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 380 speak of "punishable with fine". Section 388
provides not only for fine but also for imprisonment. It
cannot be suggested that the punishment of imprisonment
contemplated by Section 388 can be awarded by the Officer of
the Corporation. If so, the punishment of fine can also not
be imposed by them. The same logic applies to Section 116
as well. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that
punishment of fine provided by Section 116 can be imposed
only by the Criminal Court and cannot be imposed by the
Officer of the Corporation.
6. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. No
costs.
408