http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LUDHIANA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF PATIALADIVISION, PATIALA AND ANOTHER

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: 1.   Leave granted. 2.   Section  90  of the Punjab Municipal  Corporation  Act, 1976  empowers  the Corporation to levy inter  alia  octroi. Section  113 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 maybe 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  r  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Corporation.    The   correctness  of  the  said   view   is questioned.  So 407 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  col- lected 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/-, whether is higher. 4.   Section  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 (1) with fine which may extend to the amount,  or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to the period, specified in that behalf ...."               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  nay rule or any bye-law  made  thereunder,               except on the complaint of or upon information               received from the commissioner, the  Executive               Officer  the  Medical Officer of  Health,  the                             Municipal  Engineer (Electricity) or any  othe r               officer of the Corporation authorised by it in               this behalf." 5.   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 Private Limited v. Municipal corporation  of Ludhiana  (C.W.P.  No.1804  of  1977)  disposed  of  on  Act September, 1965 and Gian Chand v. The State (1958 Punjab Law Reporter 539).  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  Section  116 and  380  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 Officer 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 Officer of the Corporation. 6.   The  appeal  accordingly fails and  is  dismissed.   No costs. 408