1953 (3) TMI 48 - SC - Indian Laws

Single judge has jurisdiction to hear property forfeiture reference under sections 431-432 Bengal Municipal Act 1932

Chairman of The Bankura Municipality Versus Lalji Raja and Sons

The SC held that a single judge of the HC at Calcutta had jurisdiction to hear a reference regarding property forfeiture under sections 431-432 of the ... Jurisdiction of a single Judge of the High Court at Calcutta to deal with any reference or application for revision which relates to an order of forfeiture of property - reference from an order under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Act XV of 1932 - criminal matters defined in the proviso to rule 9, Chapter II, Part I of the Rules of the High Court - meaning of the word 'forfeiture' - HELD THAT:- Forfeiture of property is not one of the penalties or punishments for any of the offences mentioned in the Bengal Municipal Act. In the relevant provision in the rule of the High Court an order of sentence of death, transportation, penal servitude, forfeiture of property or of imprisonment are grouped together. These orders are purely orders by way of penalty or punishment for the commission of crimes or offences and the forfeiture of property mentioned there is no other than the one which is entailed as a consequence of the commission of a crime or offence. In order that such forfeiture of property would bar the jurisdiction of the single Judge it has to be a forfeiture of property which is provided by way of penalty or punishment for the commission of a crime or offence. In spite of his labors Shri N. C. Taluqdar has not been able to point out to us any provision 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. 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 that the appeal fails and is dismissed. Issues:Jurisdiction of a single Judge of the High Court in criminal matters under the proviso to rule 9, Chapter II, Part I of the Rules of the High Court; Whether an order under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Act XV of 1932 amounts to an order of forfeiture of property within the meaning of the proviso.Analysis:The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal under article 134(c) of the Constitution regarding the jurisdiction of a single Judge of the High Court in criminal matters. The issue was whether a single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta could hear a reference from an order under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Act XV of 1932. The proviso to rule 9, Chapter II, Part I of the Rules of the High Court defines the jurisdiction of a single Judge in criminal matters. It specifies that a single Judge cannot deal with any reference or application for revision related to an order of forfeiture of property. The question in this appeal was whether the order passed by the District Magistrate under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Act amounted to an order of forfeiture of property within the proviso's meaning.The facts of the case involved the seizure of unsound and unwholesome mustard seeds from the respondents' oil mills by the Sanitary Inspector of the Municipality. The District Magistrate, Bankura, found the seeds unfit for human consumption but directed their disposal as manure or cattle-food. The Additional Sessions Judge referred the case to the High Court for quashing the proceedings, which was accepted by Chunder J. The main argument raised was that the order of the District Magistrate constituted an order for forfeiture of property under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Act.The Court examined the definitions and provisions of sections 431 and 432 of the Act. It was argued that the vesting of condemned food or drug in the Commissioners amounted to a deprivation of proprietary rights, thus constituting forfeiture. However, the Court disagreed, stating that forfeiture involves the loss or deprivation of goods as a penalty for a crime or offence. The destruction or disposal of unsound food or drugs under section 431(2) was not a punishment but a measure to prevent their use as human food or medicine.The Court further analyzed the penalties prescribed in Chapter XXIV of the Act and noted that forfeiture of property was not among the specified penalties. It emphasized that forfeiture of property as mentioned in the rule of the High Court pertains to penalties for crimes or offences. Since the Act did not consider the actions under sections 431 and 432 as penalties for crimes, the Court concluded that the District Magistrate's order was not an order of forfeiture of property within the proviso's scope. Therefore, Chunder J. had the jurisdiction to hear and decide the reference, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the order of the District Magistrate under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Act was not an order of forfeiture of property as defined in the proviso to the rule, affirming Chunder J.'s jurisdiction to entertain and decide the reference.