# OHAIRM AN OF THE BANKURA MUNICIPALITY v. LALJI RAJA AND SONS

- **Citation:** [1953] 1 S.C.R. 767
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1952-01-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1952
- **Bench:** Mehr Chand Mahajan, Bhagwati
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ohairm-an-of-the-bankura-municipality-v-lalji-raja-and-sons-198
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Calcutta High Court Rules, Part I, Chap . .11, R1!le 9-J,,risdiction of Single Judge-"Order of fo1Jeiture of property"-Forfeit1!re, meaning of- Order directing di,posal of 1inwholesome food
under }1fonicipal laws- Whether forfeiture-Bengal Afonicipal Act,
1932, SS. 428, 431, 432.
An order of a District Magistrate under ss. 431 and 432 of
the Bengal Municipal Act (XV of 1932) for the disposal of an article of food which has been seized under s. 428 of the said Act is not
an order of forfeiture of property within the meaning of the proviso to rule 9 of Chap. II of Part II of the Calcutta High Court
Rules, and a Single Judge of the said High Court has jurisdiction
to hear a reference from such an order.
Unless the loss or deprivation of property is by way of
penalty or punishment for a crime, offence or breach of engagement it would not amount to a "forfeiture" of property.
CtUMINAL

## Text

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
767
OHAIRM AN OF THE BANKURA
MUNICIPALITY
v.
LALJI RAJA AND SONS.
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and BHAGWATI JJ.]
Calcutta High Court Rules, Part I, Chap . .11, R1!le 9-J,,risdiction of Single Judge-"Order of fo1Jeiture of property"-Forfeit1!re, meaning of- Order directing di,posal of 1inwholesome food
under }1fonicipal laws- Whether forfeiture-Bengal Afonicipal Act,
1932, SS. 428, 431, 432.
An order of a District Magistrate under ss. 431 and 432 of
the Bengal Municipal Act (XV of 1932) for the disposal of an article of food which has been seized under s. 428 of the said Act is not
an order of forfeiture of property within the meaning of the proviso to rule 9 of Chap. II of Part II of the Calcutta High Court
Rules, and a Single Judge of the said High Court has jurisdiction
to hear a reference from such an order.
Unless the loss or deprivation of property is by way of
penalty or punishment for a crime, offence or breach of engagement it would not amount to a "forfeiture" of property.
CtUMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 23 of 1952. Appeal from an Order dated
18th January, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature
at Calcutta (Chunder J.) in Criminal Reference Case
No. llO of 1951.
N. 0. Talukdar antl A. D. Dutt for the appellant.
Ajit Kumar Dutta and S. N. Mukherjee for the
respondents.
1953. March 12. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered hy
BHAGWATI J.-This is
an appeal under arti·
cle 134(c) of the Constitution and raises the point
whether a single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta could hear a reference from an
order under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Act XV of 1932.
'rhe jurisdiction of a single Judge of the High
Court in criminal matters is defined in the proviso to
1953
March lfl.
768
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1953]
19/J3
Chairman. of
the Bankura
rule 9, Cb apter II, Part I of the. Rules· of the High
Court and the relevant portion of the proviso runs as
under:-
v.
Lalji Raja
and Sons.
Bhaawati J.
"Provided that a single Judge may hear any Appeal, Reference, or Application for revision other
than the following:-
(1) One relating to an order of sentence of death,
transportation, penal servitude, forfeiture of property
or of imprisonment, not being an order of imprisonment in defanlt of payment of fine ......................... "
A single Judge therefore has no jurisdiction to deal
with any reference or application for revision which
relates to an order of forfeiture of property, and the
question that arises in this appeal is wbenher the
order passed by the learned District Magistrate,
Bankura, under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal
Municipal Act, 1932, amounted to an order of forfeitu:·e of property within the meaning of the above
proviso.
'fhe relevant facts may be shortly stated as follows.
The respondents are ;he proprietors of several oil
mills in the town of Dankura within the Bankura
Municipality. The Sanitary Inspector of the Municipality received on 6th Marnh, Hl50, information that
the Manager of the Bree Gonranga Oil Mill, belonging to the respondents had dep"osited about 300 ba.gs
of rotten, decomposed, unwholesome mustard seeds in
the courtyard of the Rice Mill of Bree Hanseswar
Maji and about 600 bags of unwholesome mnstard
seeds in the 1p.ill godown of the respondents for sale
and for the preparation of oil therefrom for sale. On
an application made by him in that behalf the 8ubDivisional Officer, Bankura, duly issued a search warrant and the Sanitary Inspector on the same day
found in possession of the respondents a huge q uantity of mustard seeds which were found to be highly
unsound, unwholesome and unfit for human consumption. He seized the said seeds between the 6th March,
1950, and the 8th March, 1950, and after the completion of the seizure asked for written consent of the
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
769
respondents for destruction of t.he said mustard seeds
which they refused.
'rhe Sanitary Inspector therefore kept all the bags thus seized, viz., 951! bags, in
the mill .godowns of the respondents with their consent. .After sever:ol proceedings which it is not necessary to mention for the purpose of this appeal, the
District Magistrate, Bankura, in M. P. No. 58 of 1950
under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal
Act on the 14th Auguot, 1951, found that the stock
of mustard seeds which was seized on the 6th March,
1950, was on that date and still was unfit for human
consumption. J3ut in so far as no oil was coming out
of the seeds and the seeds were capable of being used
as manure or for cattle-food he would not direct their
destruction but directed that they should be disposed
of by the Commissioners of the Bankura Municipality
as manure or as cattle-food ensuring before such disposal that the stocks in question had been rendered
incapable of being used as human food.
The respondents.filed a petition under section 435 of the
Criminal Procedure Code before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura, against the order of the District
Magistrate, for a reference to the High Court.
The
Additional Sessions Judge held that the seizure of the
mustard seeds was illegal and that there was no evidence to show that the seeds in question were deposited in or brought to the places for the purpose of
their sale or of preparation of oil for human consumption. He therefore made a reference under section 438
of the Criminal Procedure Code to the High Court
for gnashing the proceedings.
Chunder J. accepted
the reference, set aside the order of the District
Magistrate and remanded ,the case for retrial by some
other Magistrate, as in the opinion of the learned
Judge, the District Magistrate had decided the matter
upon his own observations formed during the inspectidn of the mustard seeds and not on the material in
the record. An application was made to a Bench of
the High Court and leave was allowed on the point
·whether Chunder J. had jurisdiction sitting singly to
bear th~ reference in view of the rule cited a]Jov~,
1953
Chair11ia11 of
the Bankura.
M11nicipality
v,
J;alji Raja
and Sons.
Bhag1oati J.
770
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953)
1968
Sri N. C. Taluqdar for the appellants urged tha.t
Chair<nan of the order made by the District Magistrate, Bankura,
th• Bankura under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal
Municipality Act, 1932, was an order for forfeiture of property
v.
Lalji Raja
and Sons.
Bhagtoati J.
within the meaning of the proviso to the rule and
Chunder J. had no jurisdiction to deal with the reference and his order should be quashed.
Section 431 provides :-
" ( l) Where any living thing, article of food,
drug, ......... seized under section 428 is not destroyed
by consent under sub-section (1) of section 429, or
where an article of food so seized which is perishable
is not dealt with under sub-section (2) of that section,
it shall be taken before a Magistrate as soon as ma,y
be after such seizure.
(2) If it appears to the Magistrate that any
such Ii ving thing is diseased or unsound or that any
such food or drug is unsound, unwholesome or unfit
for human food or for medicine, as the case may he
............... he shall cause the same to be destroyed at
the expense of the person .in whose possession it was
at the time of its seizure, or to be otherwise disposed
of by the Commissioners so as not to be capable of
being used as human food or medicine ......... "
Section 432 provides : -
"When any authority directs in exercise of any
powers conferred by this chapter, the destruction of
any living thing, food or any drug, or the disposal of
the same so as to prevent its being used as food or
medicine, the same sh~)] thereupon be deemed to be
the property of the Commissioners."
The word "forfeiture" is ~efined in Murray's Oxford
Dictionary:-" The fact of losing or becoming liable
to deprivation of goods in consequence of a crime,
'offence, or breach of engagement" ......... "the penalty
of the transgression"
or a "punishment for an
offence". It was contended that in so far as section 432 provided for the vesting of the condemned
food or drug in the Commissioners the owner of the·
property was divested or deprived of the proprietary
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
771
rights therein· and that the order made by the Magistrate under section 431 (2) was thus an order of forfeiture of the property.
This contention in our opinion is unsound. According to the dictionary meaning of the word "forfeiture"
the loss or the deprivation of goods has got to be in
consequence of a crime, offence or breach of engagement or has to be by way of penalty of the transgression or a punishment for an offence.
Unless the loss
or deprivation of the goods is by way of a penalty or
punishment for a crime, offence or breach of engagement it would no& come within the definition of for ..
feiture. What is provided under section 431(2) is the
destruction of the food or drug which is unsound,
unwholesome or unfit for human food or medicine or
the otherwise disposal of the same by the Commissioners so as not to be capable of being used as
human food or medicine.
The vesting of such
coqdemned food or drug iu the Commissioners which is
provided by section 432 is with a view to facilitate the
destruction or the otherwise disposal of such food or
drug by the Commissioners and is in no way Ii fo1·-
f eiture of such food or drug by the Municipality.·
The condemned food or drug by reason of its being
found unsound, unwholesome or unfit for human food
or medicine cannot be dealt with by the owner.
It
must be destroyed or otherwise disposed of so as to
prevent its being used as human food or medicine.
What the Municipal Commissioners are empowered
to do therefore is what the owner himself would be
expected to do and what is ordered to be done therefore
cannot amount to a forfeiture of the property.
The
order is not a punishment for a crime but is a measure
to ensure that the condemned food er drug is not used
as human food or medicine.
That this is the t.rue position is clear from the provisions of Chapter XXIV of the Act which provides
for penalties. Sections 501 to 504 prescribe p~nalties
for specific offences and section 500 prescribes generally penalties for the several offences therein mentioned.
Section 431 however does not figure therein.
100
1953
Chairman of
ths Bankura
Municipality
v.
Lalji Raja
and Sons.
Bhagwati J.
1953
Chairnian of
the R1inkura
llfum~cipality
V,
Lalji Raja
and Sons.
Bhagwati J.
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
Forfeiture of property is thus not one of the
penalties or punishments for any of the offences
mentioned ~n the Bengal Municipal Act.
In the
relevant provision in the rule of the High Court an
order of sentence of death, transportation, penal
servitude, forfeiture of property or of imprisonmeut
are grouped together. 'rhese orders are purely orders
by way 'of penalty or punishm.ent for the commissiou
of crimes or offences and the forfeiture of property
mentioned there is no other than the one which is
entailed as a consequence of the commission of a
crime or offence.
In order that such forfeiture of
property would bar the jurisdiction of the single Judge
it has to be a forfeiture of property which is provided
by way of penalty or punishment for the commission
of a crime or offence.
In spite of his
labours
Shri N. C. Taluqdar hs.s not been able to point out to
us any provision of the Beugal Municipal Act, 1932,
which constitutes what is con temp lated under section
431(2), a penalty or punishment for the commission
of a crime or offence. The offence that the respondent
could be charged with i~ deened in section 421 of the
Act and the punishment for that offence provided in
section 500 is fine and not forfeiture.
vVe are therefore of the opinion that the order of
the District Magistrate, Bankura, under sections 431
and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, dated 14th
August, 1951, was not an order of forfeiture of property within the meaning of the proviso to rule 9,
Chapter II, Part I, of the Rules of the High Court,
and Chunder J. had the jurisdiction to entertain and
decide the reference.
The result is that the appeal
fails and is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellant : Sukumar Ghose.
Agent for respondent: R. R. Biswas. ·
~--