Persona Designata in municipal recovery: Magistrate not a criminal court, revision barred, and recovery stayed valid without framed rules.

Where a municipal levy recoverable as a tax had a separate appellate remedy, objections to the notice or levy had to be pursued in that appeal, and proceedings under section 234 were confined to distress and sale after the levy became final. The Magistrate acting at the recovery stage was treated as a persona designata under the Regulation, not as an inferior criminal court, so revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure was unavailable. The absence of framed rules prescribing the manner of demand did not invalidate the statutory power to demand and recover the amount, and the recovery proceedings remained competent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Magistrate entertaining an application under section 234 of the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation, 1925 acts as an inferior criminal court so as to attract revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) Whether, in the absence of framed rules prescribing the manner of demand, proceedings for recovery under section 234 were incompetent.

Issue (i): Whether a Magistrate entertaining an application under section 234 of the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation, 1925 acts as an inferior criminal court so as to attract revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The regulatory scheme treated the cost of repairs undertaken under section 220 as recoverable from the owner as if it were a tax under section 222(4). Reading sections 222, 93 and 226 together, the amount was appealable as a tax, and objections to the notice or the levy had to be pursued in that appellate remedy. Proceedings under section 234 were only for recovery by distress and sale after the levy had become final. The enquiry before the Magistrate was therefore limited, in substance civil or ministerial, and the Magistrate acted by designation under the Regulation rather than as a criminal court under the Code.

Conclusion: The Magistrate was not an inferior criminal court, and revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure was not available.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the absence of framed rules prescribing the manner of demand, proceedings for recovery under section 234 were incompetent.

Analysis: The absence of prescribed rules did not destroy the statutory power to make a demand or recover the amount. The demand made under section 222(1) remained enforceable, and the objection, being part of the merits, could not assist the appellant once the revision itself was held incompetent.

Conclusion: The recovery proceedings were not incompetent on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's refusal to entertain revision failed, and the recovery order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a special recovery mechanism for a levy treated as a tax and provides a separate appellate remedy against the levy, the Magistrate acting in the recovery stage is a persona designata and not an inferior criminal court.

---