Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Byramji Pudumji (No. 1) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 39 of 1919
Judge
Reported in(1919)21BOMLR759
AppellantEmperor
RespondentByramji Pudumji (No. 1)
Excerpt:
.....to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to impose a fine for the past..........under the provisions of rule 107a of the cantonment code. it was proved to the satisfaction of the district magistrate on 27th of october 1918 that the owner of a house in the poona cantonment had persisted in failure to carry out an order made under rule 97, and taking the words of rule 107a, he was punishable with a fine not exceeding rs. 5 for every day after the first in regard to which he was convicted of having persisted in the failure. he could of course be convicted with having persisted in the failure only as regards the past; he could not be convicted of a failure in regard to the future. a fine of rs. 5 a day therefore might have been imposed for the material days up to the 27th of october. but that was not done. the district magistrate, taking, i have no doubt, a sensible.....
Judgment:

Heaton, J.

1. It is urged-and I think correctly urged- that the order made by the District Magistrate of Poona fining the applicant is, in the form it took, illegal. The order was made under the provisions of Rule 107A of the Cantonment Code. It was proved to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate on 27th of October 1918 that the owner of a house in the Poona Cantonment had persisted in failure to carry out an order made under Rule 97, and taking the words of Rule 107A, he was punishable with a fine not exceeding Rs. 5 for every day after the first in regard to which he was convicted of having persisted in the failure. He could of course be convicted with having persisted in the failure only as regards the past; he could not be convicted of a failure in regard to the future. A fine of Rs. 5 a day therefore might have been imposed for the material days up to the 27th of October. But that was not done. The District Magistrate, taking, I have no doubt, a sensible broad view of the affair, came to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to impose a fine for the past failure. But to emphasise the need of obedience to the order previously made, he directed that a fine of Rs. 5 a day should be paid from the 1st of November. That date was in the future, and as the words of the rule show, he was not empowered to make an order as to the future. That part of his order therefore is illegal and must be set aside and the fine, if paid, should be refunded.

Shah, J.

2. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //