Public health disposal order is not forfeiture of property when it is non-punitive and meant to prevent unsafe use.

An order under a public health statute directing destruction or regulated disposal of unwholesome food was not treated as forfeiture of property because the vesting in the municipal authority served only to enable destruction or disposal, not to impose punishment. Forfeiture in the relevant High Court rule meant loss of property by way of penalty for a crime or offence, and the municipal order was not shown to be punitive or a statutory penalty. The Supreme Court therefore held that the single Judge had jurisdiction to hear the reference, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order directing destruction or disposal of unwholesome food under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, amounted to a forfeiture of property so as to bar a single Judge of the High Court from hearing the reference.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required unsound or unwholesome food to be destroyed or otherwise disposed of so that it could not be used as human food or medicine. The vesting of such condemned food in the Municipal Commissioners was only to facilitate that destruction or disposal. Forfeiture, in the relevant High Court rule, meant loss of property by way of penalty or punishment for a crime or offence. The municipal order was not punitive and was not shown to be a statutory penalty for an offence; the punitive provisions of the Act were contained elsewhere.

Conclusion: The order was not an order of forfeiture of property within the meaning of the High Court rule, and the single Judge had jurisdiction to hear and decide the reference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the High Court's order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An order under a public health statute directing destruction or regulated disposal of unfit food is not a forfeiture of property unless the deprivation operates as a penalty or punishment for an offence.

---