Judgement

Bhagwati J.- This is an appeal under Art. 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 Ss. 431 & 432, Bengal Municipal Act, 15 of 1932.

2. The jurisdiction of a single Judge of the High Court in criminal matters is defined in the proviso to R. 9, Ch. 2, part 1 of the Rules of the High Court and the relevant portion of the proviso runs as under :

"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 default of payment of fine .........."

3. 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 whether the order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Bankura, under Ss. 431 and 432, Bengal Municipal Act 1932 amounted to an order of forfeiture of property within the meaning of the above proviso.

4. The relevant facts may be shortly stated as follows. The respondents are the proprietors of several oil mills in the town of Bankura within the Bankura Municipality. The Sanitary Inspector of the Municipality received on 6-3-1950 information that the Manager of the Sree Gouranga Oil Mill, belonging to the respondents had deposited about 300 bags of rotten decomposed, unwholesome mustard seeds in the courtyard of the Rice Mill of Sree Hanseswar Maji and about 600 bags of unwholesome mustard seeds in the mill 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 Sub-Divisional Officer, Bankura, duly issued a search warrant and the Sanitary Inspector on the same day found in possession of the respondents a huge quantity of mustard seeds which were found to be highly unsound, unwholesome and unfit for human consumption. He seized the said seeds between 6-3-1950 and 8-3-1950 and after the completion of the seizure asked for written consent of the respondents for destruction of the said mustard seeds which they refused. The Sanitary Inspector therefore kept all the bags thus seized, viz. 951-1/2 bags in the mill godown of the respondents with their consent. After several 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 Ss. 431 and 432, Bengal Municipal Act on 14-8-1951 found that the stock of mustard seeds which was seized on 6-3-1950 was on that date and still was unfit for human consumption. But 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 S. 435 Criminal P. C. 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 S. 438, Criminal P. C., to the High Court for quashing 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 obse