PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL CORPN. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMR. OF PATIALA DIVISION 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:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.P JEEVAN REDDY, J.- Leave granted.
2.Section 90 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act,
1976 empowers the Corporation to levy inter alia octroi.
Sections 11 3 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 may be 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
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
Corporation. The correctness of the said view is questioned.
So 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
collected 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, whichever is
higher.
4.Sections 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 (i) with fine which may extend to the amount,
or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to the
period, specified in that behalf……”.
5. 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 any rule or any bye-law made thereunder,
except on the complaint of, or upon
information received from the Commissioner,
the Executive
306
Officer, the Medical Officer of Health, the
Municipal Engineer (Electricity) or any other
officer of the Corporation authorised by it in
this behalf.”
6. 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 (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Ludhiana1
disposed of on 4-9-1985 and Gian Chand v. State2. 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 Sections 116 and 388 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 officers 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 officers of the Corporation.
7. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. No
costs.
307