Skip to content


Mohamad Ibrahim Sahib Vs. Municipality of Anakapalli - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in30Ind.Cas.750
AppellantMohamad Ibrahim Sahib
RespondentMunicipality of Anakapalli
Excerpt:
madras district municipalities act (iv of 1884), sections 103, 111, 147, 209, 218, 269 - 'toll-gate kist,' if tax--non-payment of toll-gate kist--prosecution, liability for. - - he has been prosecuted under section 103 and convicted under section 111 of the district municipalities act in consequences of his failure to pay that is called in the complaint 'the toll-gate kist' for the second half of 914-1915. this 'toll-gate kist' is in fact the amount due to the municipality from the petitioner, to whom the right of collection has been farmed out by the municipal council under section 92 of the act. but the section only refers to contract made under sections 147, 269. 3. in my opinion the petitioner was not liable to prosecution for failure to pay amounts due by him under the toll-gate.....orderayling, j.1. the petitioner was toll-gate contractor under the anakapalli municipality. he has been prosecuted under section 103 and convicted under section 111 of the district municipalities act in consequences of his failure to pay that is called in the complaint 'the toll-gate kist' for the second half of 914-1915. this 'toll-gate kist' is in fact the amount due to the municipality from the petitioner, to whom the right of collection has been farmed out by the municipal council under section 92 of the act.2. the only question is whether it is an 'amount due on account of any tax' within the meaning of section 10. on the face of it is certainly not so, but the learned public prosecutor relies on section 269 which authorizes the municipal council to collect certain sums due to them.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ayling, J.

1. The petitioner was toll-gate contractor under the Anakapalli Municipality. He has been prosecuted under Section 103 and convicted under Section 111 of the District Municipalities Act in consequences of his failure to pay that is called in the complaint 'the toll-gate kist' for the second half of 914-1915. This 'toll-gate kist' is in fact the amount due to the Municipality from the petitioner, to whom the right of collection has been farmed out by the Municipal Council under Section 92 of the Act.

2. The only question is whether it is an 'amount due on account of any tax' within the meaning of Section 10. On the face of it is certainly not so, but the learned Public Prosecutor relies on Section 269 which authorizes the Municipal Council to collect certain sums due to them as if they were taxes. The suit amount does not however, seem to fall under any of the headings dealt with in Section 269. It cannot, in my opinion, be properly described as rent. It is a payment due under a contract. But the section only refers to contract made under Sections 147, 269.

3. In my opinion the petitioner was not liable to prosecution for failure to pay amounts due by him under the toll-gate contract. I set aside the conviction and sentence and direct the fine, if paid, to be refunded.


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