Skip to content


Mathura Prasad Vs. Municipal Board - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in94Ind.Cas.136
AppellantMathura Prasad
RespondentMunicipal Board
Cases ReferredKashmiri Lal v. Emperor
Excerpt:
u.p. municipalities act (ii of 1916), section 307(b) - order of continuing fine when can be passed. - - 20. at the same time he ordered the accused to remove the culvert and directed that if he failed to do so he would have to pay a daily fine of re. this clearly implied that there must be a separate prosecution and a separate conviction after the accused has failed to comply with the order and has rendered himself liable to a continuing fine......the accused to remove the culvert and directed that if he failed to do so he would have to pay a daily fine of re. 1 so long as it was not removed. the learned magistrate in his explanation justifies the order as covered by section 307 (6). the provisions of this section are constantly misunderstood by magistrates in spite' of their effect having been pointed out more than once by this court. section 307 (6) says that the offender shall be liable on conviction before a magistrate to a daily fine for every day after the date of the first conviction during which the offender is proved to have persisted in the offence. this clearly implied that there must be a separate prosecution and a separate conviction after the accused has failed to comply with the order and has rendered himself.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This case has been referred by the Additional Sessions Judge of Mainpuri on the ground that an order of continuing fine purporting to be passed under Section 307 (b) of the U. P Municipalities Act is illegal. The Magistrate convicted the accused of constructing a culvert without the permission of the Municipal Board and fined him Rs. 20. At the same time he ordered the accused to remove the culvert and directed that if he failed to do so he would have to pay a daily fine of Re. 1 so long as it was not removed. The learned Magistrate in his explanation justifies the order as covered by Section 307 (6). The provisions of this section are constantly misunderstood by Magistrates in spite' of their effect having been pointed out more than once by this Court. Section 307 (6) says that the offender shall be liable on conviction before a Magistrate to a daily fine for every day after the date of the first conviction during which the offender is proved to have persisted in the offence. This clearly implied that there must be a separate prosecution and a separate conviction after the accused has failed to comply with the order and has rendered himself liable to a continuing fine. A Magistrate cannot at the time of the original conviction pass an order in respect of a future offence. This was already laid down by this Court in Amir Hasan Khan v. Emperor 46 Ind. Cas. 150 : 40 A. 569 : 16 A.L.J. 527 : 19 Cr.L.J. 694 and again in Kashmiri Lal v. Emperor 63 Ind. Cas. 410 : 43 A. 644 : 19 A.L.J. 541 : 22 Cr.L.J. 650 : 3 U.P.L.R. (A.) 175. I accordingly accept the reference and set aside that part of the Magistrate's order which imposes a daily fine on the accused.


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