Skip to content


Haji Fateh Mohammad Vs. Registrar, Public Trust - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision Application No. 207 of 1957
Judge
Reported in(1958)60BOMLR237
AppellantHaji Fateh Mohammad
RespondentRegistrar, Public Trust
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
madhya pradesh public trusts act (xxx of 1951), sections 13 and 33 - registration of trust as public trust done by additional deputy commissioner on application by applicant--applicant convicted of offence under section 33(1) for contravening provisions of section 13--applicability of sections 13 and 33.; the provisions of sections 13 and 33 of the madhya pradesh public trusts act, 1951, cannot apply to a public trust which has been registered only with the additional deputy commissioner on the wrong assumption that he was the registrar of public trusts.; shah fariduddin v. mohammad akbar addl. d.c. (1957) n.l.j. 551, referred to. - .....j.1. the applicant has been convicted of an offence under section 33(1) of the madhya pradesh public trusts act, 1951, for the contravention of the provisions of section 13 thereof and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 300 or to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.2. the only point taken is that the alleged trust not having been registered with the deputy commissioner, nagpur, as registrar of the public trust, but having been registered only with the additional deputy commissioner on the wrong assumption that he was the registrar of public trusts, the provisions of sections 13 and 33 of the act cannot apply.3. the contention of the applicant is correct. reading the scheme of the act it is clear that the obligation created by section 13 of the act for the depositing of.....
Judgment:

Mudholkar, J.

1. The applicant has been convicted of an offence under Section 33(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, for the contravention of the provisions of Section 13 thereof and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 or to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. The only point taken is that the alleged trust not having been registered with the Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur, as Registrar of the public trust, but having been registered only with the Additional Deputy Commissioner on the wrong assumption that he was the Registrar of public trusts, the provisions of Sections 13 and 33 of the Act cannot apply.

3. The contention of the applicant is correct. Reading the scheme of the Act it is clear that the obligation created by Section 13 of the Act for the depositing of trust monies in the bank applies only to the person who is the trustee of a public trust that is registered. That will be clear from the reference to the word 'Registrar' in Section 13 itself. Now, the Registrar can have no function to discharge except in respect of public trusts which have been registered. As has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Shah Fariduddin v. Mohammad Akbar Addl D.C. (1957) N.L.J. 551 the only authority in a district which can function as Registrar is the Deputy Commissioner of that district and therefore a public trust must be registered with him. Through an erroneous practice in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur, was authorised to register public trusts. That, of course, is not permissible to be done under the Act. No doubt, here the applicant himself had made an application for registering the trust as public trust, but as the registration was done not by the Deputy Commissioner but by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, it is of no legal effect. The consequence of this is that the Provisions of Sections 13 and 33(1) of the Act are inapplicable.

4. Accordingly, I allow the application for revision, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the applicant and direct that the fine if paid shall be refunded to him.


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