March lfl v. LALJI RAJA AND SONS

Sri N. C. Taluqdar for the appellants urged tha.t the order made by the District Magistrate, Bankura, Chair<nan of th• Bankura under sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Municipality Act, 1932, was an order for forfeiture of property within the meaning of the proviso to the rule and Chunder J. had no jurisdiction to deal with the re ference and his order should be quashed. v. Lalji Raja and Sons. Bhagtoati J. 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 transgression" or a "punishment for an It was contended that in so far as sec offence". tion 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 1953 Chairman of ths Bankura Municipality v. Lalji Raja and Sons. Bhagwati J. .. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 771 rights therein· and that the order made by the Magis trate under section 431 (2) was thus an order of for feiture of the property. This contention in our opinion is unsound. Accord ing 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 engage ment or has to be by way of penalty of the transgres sion 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 engage ment 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 Commis sioners 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 It or medicine cannot be dealt with by the owner. 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 pro visions of Chapter XXIV of the Act which provides for penalties. Sections 501 to 504 prescribe p~nalties for specific offences and section 500 prescribes gene rally penalties for the several offences therein men tioned. Section 431 however does not figure therein. 100 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 the offences penalties or punishments for any of 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. 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. In spite of his 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 pro perty 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. · ~--