# Jl!jl :r959 Oclob1r 6 I959 TM Municipal Board, 1'.tainpuri v. Kanhaiya Lal Subba Rao]

- **Citation:** [1960] 1 S.C.R. 941
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1957-08-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1958
- **Bench:** P. B. Ga.Jendragadkar, K. SuBBA. RAO
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jl-jl-r959-oclob1r-6-i959-tm-municipal-board-1-tainpuri-v-kanhaiya-lal-subba-rao-1844
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Municipality-Toll-Vehicle carrying goods from one place lo
another within municipal limits-Liability-U. P. Municipalities
Act, I9I6 (U. P. Act No II of r9r6), s. rz8(r)(vii)~
The respondent was engaged by the Mainpuri Electric Supply
and General Mills Co. Ltd., to carry coal from the Railway goodsshed to its premises. He loaded his truck with coal at the goodsshed and was carrying the same to the premises of the electric
(1) I.L.R. 1953 T. C. 69.
Jl!jl
:r959
Oclob1r 6
I959
TM Municipal
Board, 1'.tainpuri
v.
Kanhaiya Lal
Subba Rao].
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
company, both situated within the municipal limits. He refused
to pay the toll tax when asked to do so at the toll barrier and
was prosecuted under s. 299(1) of the Act.
The Sub-Divisional
Magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine of
Rs. 67 /8. On appeal, the Sessions Judge affirmed the order of
conviction and sentence. The High Court, in revision, set aside
the conviction and acquitted him. The Municipality appealed to
this Court by Special Leave. ·
Held, that the appeal must fail.
Section r28(vii) of
the
Act rightly construed, clearly
:ndicates that the municipal board's power to levy toll on conveyance is confined only to such vehicles as enter the municipality.
The words,. entering the municipality" occuring therein show
that a conveyance can be liable to the toll only when it enters
the municipality from outside.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 88 of 1958.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated August 23, 1957, of the Allahabad High
Court, in Criminal Revision No. 54 of 1955, arising out
of the judgment and order dated December 17, 1954,
of the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in Criminal Appeal
No. 291 of 1954, confirming the judgment and order
dated July 13, 1954 of the Magistrate 1st Class,
Mainpuri, in Criminal Case No. 20 of 1954,
S. P. Sinha and B. R. L. Iyengar, for the appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
1959. October 6.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
SuBBA RAo J.-This appeal raises the question of
true interpretation of s. 128 of the U.P- Municipalities
Act, 1916, (hereinafter called the Act). The facts lie
in a. small compass a.nd they are not in dispute.
The State Government issued a. notification defining
the municipal limits of the town of Mainpuri. Under
this notification the goods-shed of the Ma.inpuri
railway station is included within Ma.inpuri municipal
limits, but the rest of the station .is excluded therefrom. A motora.ble road connects the station with
the ma.in inhabited area. of the town. The Municipality
fixed a. toll-barrier on this road between the ra.ilwa.y
goods-shed a.nd the inhabited a.res. of the town. The
S.C.R.
SUPREM€ COURT REPORTS
943
Mainpuri Electric Supply and General Mills Co. Ltd.,
z9J9
Mainpuri, supplies electricity to Mainpuri town. It The Municipal
purchases coal from places outside Mainpuri and Board, Mainpuri
receives the same in railway wagons, which are
v.
unloaded and kept in the goods-shed. The respondent
Kanhaiya Lal
~ns a truck. He was engaged to carry the coal from
SubbaRaoj.
the goods-shed to the premises of the electric
Company, which is inside the town. He loaded his
truck with coal at the railway goods-shed and was
taking the same to the premises of the electric
Company, when he was asked to pay toll-tax at the
toll-barrier, but he did not pay it. He was prosecuted
under s. 299(1) of the Act, read with Rule 1 of the
Rules for assessment and collection of toll-tax. The
respondent denied his liabiiity to pay the tax. The
Sub-Divisional Magistrate convicted him under the said
section and directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 67-8-0.
On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri,
confirmed the same. In revision, the High Court set
aside the conviction and acquitted the accused. The
Municipality by special leave has preferred this appeal.
Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that on
a true construction of s. 128 of the Act and the Rules
fr

## Text

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
941
and reasonable construction, they lead only to one
1959
conclusion and that is that the copies of the criminal Bibhuti Bhusan
judgments or orders must bear the court fee stamp
Chatterjee
prescribed by Art. 9. That is the view .taken by the
v.
High Court consistently with the practice prevailing Thi s1a11 of Bihar
in the High Court for several years. We are satisfied
. 4 --:a
11 1
that the view of the High Court and the practice Ga;en rac
ar •
prevailing there are wholly justified by the provisions
of Art. 9.
This question was raised before the
Trava.ncore-Cochin High Court in James Paul Alexander v. James Arthur Edwards (1) where the same view
has been ta.ken about the construction of the corresponding article, Art. 10, of the Court Fees Act.
We may add that there is some force in the contention raised by the appellant that the court fee
prescribed by Art. 9 may sometimes work hardship
on accused persons ; but that is a matter of policy
with which we are not concerned. The Legislature
may, however, consider whether it would not be
appropriate to enact a suitable provision dealing with
copies of criminal orders and judgments as has been
done in Madras. The Madras Legislature has inserted
Art. 6-A in Sch. I of the Act by Act V of 1922, prescribing a uniform court fee of 8 as. for the copy or
translation of a judgment or order of a criminal court.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Appf.(ll dismissed.
THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, MAINPURI
v.
KANHAIYA LAL
(P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR and K. SuBBA. RAO, JJ.)
Municipality-Toll-Vehicle carrying goods from one place lo
another within municipal limits-Liability-U. P. Municipalities
Act, I9I6 (U. P. Act No II of r9r6), s. rz8(r)(vii)~
The respondent was engaged by the Mainpuri Electric Supply
and General Mills Co. Ltd., to carry coal from the Railway goodsshed to its premises. He loaded his truck with coal at the goodsshed and was carrying the same to the premises of the electric
(1) I.L.R. 1953 T. C. 69.
Jl!jl
:r959
Oclob1r 6
I959
TM Municipal
Board, 1'.tainpuri
v.
Kanhaiya Lal
Subba Rao].
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
company, both situated within the municipal limits. He refused
to pay the toll tax when asked to do so at the toll barrier and
was prosecuted under s. 299(1) of the Act.
The Sub-Divisional
Magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine of
Rs. 67 /8. On appeal, the Sessions Judge affirmed the order of
conviction and sentence. The High Court, in revision, set aside
the conviction and acquitted him. The Municipality appealed to
this Court by Special Leave. ·
Held, that the appeal must fail.
Section r28(vii) of
the
Act rightly construed, clearly
:ndicates that the municipal board's power to levy toll on conveyance is confined only to such vehicles as enter the municipality.
The words,. entering the municipality" occuring therein show
that a conveyance can be liable to the toll only when it enters
the municipality from outside.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 88 of 1958.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated August 23, 1957, of the Allahabad High
Court, in Criminal Revision No. 54 of 1955, arising out
of the judgment and order dated December 17, 1954,
of the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in Criminal Appeal
No. 291 of 1954, confirming the judgment and order
dated July 13, 1954 of the Magistrate 1st Class,
Mainpuri, in Criminal Case No. 20 of 1954,
S. P. Sinha and B. R. L. Iyengar, for the appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
1959. October 6.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
SuBBA RAo J.-This appeal raises the question of
true interpretation of s. 128 of the U.P- Municipalities
Act, 1916, (hereinafter called the Act). The facts lie
in a. small compass a.nd they are not in dispute.
The State Government issued a. notification defining
the municipal limits of the town of Mainpuri. Under
this notification the goods-shed of the Ma.inpuri
railway station is included within Ma.inpuri municipal
limits, but the rest of the station .is excluded therefrom. A motora.ble road connects the station with
the ma.in inhabited area. of the town. The Municipality
fixed a. toll-barrier on this road between the ra.ilwa.y
goods-shed a.nd the inhabited a.res. of the town. The
S.C.R.
SUPREM€ COURT REPORTS
943
Mainpuri Electric Supply and General Mills Co. Ltd.,
z9J9
Mainpuri, supplies electricity to Mainpuri town. It The Municipal
purchases coal from places outside Mainpuri and Board, Mainpuri
receives the same in railway wagons, which are
v.
unloaded and kept in the goods-shed. The respondent
Kanhaiya Lal
~ns a truck. He was engaged to carry the coal from
SubbaRaoj.
the goods-shed to the premises of the electric
Company, which is inside the town. He loaded his
truck with coal at the railway goods-shed and was
taking the same to the premises of the electric
Company, when he was asked to pay toll-tax at the
toll-barrier, but he did not pay it. He was prosecuted
under s. 299(1) of the Act, read with Rule 1 of the
Rules for assessment and collection of toll-tax. The
respondent denied his liabiiity to pay the tax. The
Sub-Divisional Magistrate convicted him under the said
section and directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 67-8-0.
On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri,
confirmed the same. In revision, the High Court set
aside the conviction and acquitted the accused. The
Municipality by special leave has preferred this appeal.
Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that on
a true construction of s. 128 of the Act and the Rules
framed thereunder, the respondent was guilty of the
offence with which he was charged. As the question
raised turns upon the construction of the said provisions, it would be convenient to read the relevant
provisions at this stage.
S. 128. {i) Subject to any general rules or special
orders of the State Government in this behalf, the
taxes which a boarq may impose in the whole or any
pa.rt of a municipality ar~
•
•
•
{vii) a. toll on vehicl~ and other conveyances,
animals, and la.den coolies entering the municipality.
S. 153. The following matters shall be regulated
and governed by rules except in so far as provisions
therefor is ma.de by this Act, namely,-
( a) the assessment, collection or composition of
taxes, and, in the case of octroi or toll, the determination of octroi or toll limit.
I959
Tht Municipal
Board. M ainpuri
v.
Kanhaiya Lal
Subba Rao].
944
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1))
Rules framed by the M unicipaJ,ity M ainpuri.
Rule 1. "No person shall bring within the limits
of the Mainpuri Municipality :-
Any laden vehicle or laden animal in respect of
which a toll is leviable under notification No. 1866/
XXIIl-97 of 31st January 1921 until the toll dl!e
thereof has been paid to such persons, and at such
barriers as the board may from time to time
appoint."
*
•
•
RUle 3. "When any laden coolie or any person in
charge of a laden vehicle, or a laden animal wishes
to pass barrier, such coolie or person shall pay the
toll due to the Moharrir. at the barrier. . . . . "
"Any breach of these Rules amounts to an offence
under section 299(1) of the Act, and is punishable
under the penalty clause of the Rules which is in
these words;
"Any breach of the Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 above
shall be punishable with fine which may extend
Rs. 50 but shall in no case be less than ten times
the amount due from the offender on account of the
tax."
The following ingredients of the offence may be
gathered from a combined reading of the said provisions: (1) The toll is on vehicles; (2) a person cannot
bring a laden vehicle. without paying the prescribed
toll within the limits of the Municipality from without; (3) the person in charge of such vehicle must
pay a toll at the barrier ; and ( 4) if he does not pay,
he is liable to punishment. It is clear from the wording of the provisions that they are designed for
collecting toll from laden vehicles entering the municipal limits from without. Subject to any general rules
or special orders of the State Government in this
behalf-it is not suggested that there are any suchthe municipal board's power under s. 128 (vii) of the
Act to levy toll on convf:lyances is confined only to
those "entering the municipality". The word "entering" in s. 128 (vii) of the Act clearly indicates that
the conveyance to be liable to the toll must enter the
Municipality from places outside it. By no stretch of
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
945
language it is possible to hold that a vehicle which is
already in the limits of the Municipality, when it plies
for hire, enters the municipal limits. So too, the words
"bring within the limits of Mainpuri Municipality "
in Rule I emphasize the idea that a laden vehicle
cannot be brought within the Municipality until the
toll due has been paid. One cannot bring within the
Municipality a vehicle which is already in the Municipality. Confronted with the clear terminology used
both in the section as well as in the Rules, the learned
Counsel for the appellant attempted to argue that the
words "Mainpuri Municipality" are comprehensive
enough to take in part or parts of that Municipality
and, therefore, when a la.den vehicle passes from one
part of the Municipality to another part, it has to pay
toll if there is a barrier between the two parts. This
argument may perhaps be ingenious, but to our mind
it is clearly unsound.
We find it well nigh impossible
to hold that a vehicle is brought within the limits of
the Municipality when it is brought from one part of
the Municipality to another part.
In the result, we agree with the construction put
upon the section by the High Court. The appeal fails
and is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed
DR. B. K. PAL CHAUDHRY
v.
THE STATE OE' ASSAM
(S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR and M. HrnAYATULLAH, JJ.)
Criminal Procedure-Intentionally giving false evidence-Show
ca11se notice-Duty of Appellate Court--Criminal Procedure Code,
s. 479A, su.b-ss. (r) and (5).
By sub-s. (1) of s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure
"when any ... Criminal Court is of opinion that any person
appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false
evidence in any stage of the judicial proceedings ...... and
that, for the eradication of the evils of perjury ...... and in
the interests of justice, it is expedient that such witness should
be prosecuted for the offence which appears to have been committed by him, the Court shall, at the time of the delivery of the
1959
The Municipal
Board, Mainpuri
v.
Kanhaiya Lal
Subba Rao].
1959
October 7