Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Byramji Pudumji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1919)ILR43Bom836
AppellantEmperor
RespondentByramji Pudumji
Excerpt:
.....for disobedience--fine can be levied for the past only. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860].sections 124-a, 153-a, 153-b, 292, 293 & 295a; [f.i. rebello, smt v.k. tahilramani & a.s. oka, jj] declaration as to forfeiture of book held, the power can be exercised only if the government forms opinion that said publication contains matter which is an offence under either of sections 124-a, 153-a, 153-b, 292, 293, 295a of i.p.c., - it was proved to the satisfaction of the district magistrate on the 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..........under the provisions of rule 107a of the cantonment code. it was proved to the satisfaction of the district magistrate on the 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 hot 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.....
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 the 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 hot 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 oil 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 //