Final appellate determination of a municipal notice bars a criminal court from re-examining its legality in prosecution for disobedience.

Where the U.P. Municipalities Act provides an appeal against a municipal notice and makes the appellate order final, a criminal court trying disobedience of that notice cannot reopen its legality, validity, or reasonableness once the District Magistrate has upheld it. The only limited enquiry left to the criminal court is whether the impugned document is in truth a notice under the Act or a complete nullity. If it is a notice whose validity has been finally affirmed on appeal, the criminal court is bound by that determination. A dissenting view stated that the criminal court should itself examine whether the notice was lawfully issued.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after an appeal under Section 318 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 has been decided by the District Magistrate upholding a notice issued under Section 186, a criminal court trying an offence under Section 307 can re-open the legality, validity or reasonableness of that notice.

Analysis: The majority held that Section 318 provides the statutory remedy against orders or notices made under the Act and Section 321 gives finality to the appellate order. Once the District Magistrate has confirmed the notice, the criminal court cannot re-examine its legality or propriety, because the matter has already been finally determined by the authority given exclusive jurisdiction. The court distinguished cases where no appeal had been taken or where the notice was a complete nullity, in which event the trial court may first decide whether the document is in truth a notice issued under the Act at all. If it is such a notice and its validity has been upheld on appeal, the criminal court is bound by that conclusion. The dissenting view held that Section 307 requires the court itself to see whether the notice was lawfully issued and that the accused's right to defend himself in the criminal trial should not be curtailed by Section 321.

Conclusion: The majority answered the question in the negative: the criminal court cannot go into the legality, validity or reasonableness of the notice after an appellate order under Section 318 has become final. The dissent would have answered in the affirmative.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeds and the acquittal is set aside because the accused was bound by the final appellate determination upholding the notice and his disobedience amounted to an offence under Section 307.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an appeal against a municipal notice and declares the appellate order final, a criminal court cannot re-open the notice's legality or validity in a prosecution for disobedience, except to determine whether the impugned document is a complete nullity or not a notice under the Act at all.

---