Jagat Narayan, J.
1. This purports to be a criminal revision against an order passed by a Magistrate of Ajmer under Section 234 of the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation No. 6th of 1925, which runs as follows : --
'Any tax, water-rate or fee (other than a school-fee) and any costs, damages or compensation, or other moneys payable to, or claimable or recoverable by, a Committee under this Regulation or any rule or bye-law may, after demand has been made therefor in the manner prescribed by rule, be recovered, on application to a Magistrate having jurisdiction within the limits of the municipality, or in any other place where the person by whom the amount is payable may, for the time being, reside, by the distress and sale of any moveable property within the limits of such Magistrate's jurisdiction belonging to such person :
Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the Committee, as its discretion, from suing for the amount payable in any competent civil court.'
2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no criminal revision lies against the above order under Section 439, Cr. P. C.
3. The Ajmer Municipality issued a notice to the applicant asking him to carry out certain repairs to a wall under Section 153 of the Regulation on 13-6-50. The repairs were not carried out in spite of several reminders. A notice was then served under Section 220 of the Regulation that the repairs will be carried out at the expense of the Municipality and that cost will be recovered from the applicant alter six hours after the service of notice.
This notice was given on 3-7-50. In spite of this the applicant did not repair the wall. The Municipal Committee then got the necessary repairs carried out at their expense at a cost of Rs. 17,414/-. This sum became recoverable as a tax under the provisions of Section 222(4) of the Regulation. A notice of demand was issued on 1-4-52. Thereafter the Municipal Committee applied to the Magistrate under Section 234 to recover the amount.
4. We are of the opinion that the Magistrate was not acting as an inferior criminal court in discharging his duties under Section 234.
5. On behalf of the applicant the decision of the Judicial Commissioner Ajmer in Crown v. Amba Lal, 5 AMLJ 92 was cited. This decision was followed by the court of the Judicial Commissioner Ajmer till it was abolished. We are unable to agree with the view taken in that case. We are of the opinion that the Magistrate acting under Section 234 is a persona designata carrying out a ministerial duty. In any case he is not acting as an inferior criminal court. We are fortified in this view by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Madho Das v. Rex, AIR 1949 All 738, and the decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court in Lashkar Municipality v. Shahabuddin, AIR 1952 Madh-B. 48.
8. The preliminary objection prevails and the criminal revision is dismissed.