Judgment

BEG, J. :- The High Court of Delhi had confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Sections 353/332/333 of the Indian Penal code, and a sentence of one year s rigorous imprisonment on each count, and also to a fine of Rs. 400/-, and, in default of payment of fine, to four months further rigorous imprisonment under Section 333, Indian Penal Code. The appellant has come to this Court by grant of special leave.

2. It was alleged that the appellant had, on 17-3-1967, at 4.30 p.m., in Rameshwar Nagar, obstructed Sarvashri Rattan Singh, Maharaj Singh and Raghbir Singh, Section Inspectors, and Dunger, a Peon of the Delhi Municipal Corporation, when they went to seize a buffalo belonging to the appellant in the discharge of their duty to realise the milk tax from him, and struck Rattan Singh on the nose with the result that it bled and was also fractured.

3. The main contention on behalf of the appellant is that the attempt to realise Rs. 153.75 as arrears of milk tax together with Rs. 10/- as recovery charges was illegal, because compliance with the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), for the payment and recovery of taxes, and, in particular with the requirements for a notice of demand contained in Section 154 of the Act, was wanting so that he had a right to private defence.

4. An attempt was also made to argue that the Inspectors who went to realise the milk tax by seizing the buffalo were not duly empowered by the Commissioner to do so. An order of the Commissioner dated 22-7-1959 under Section 491 of the Act, delegating the Commissioner s power to Inspectors of the Corporation, set that question at rest. We do not think it could be argued that Section 491 requires that conferment of the Commissioner s power upon every Inspector by name. It is enough if there is a general order, as there is in this case, indicating the class of officers to whom the Commissioner had delegated his powers under any section. We are supported in this view by the case of Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration, (1965) 1 SCR 7 at p. 11.

5. We find that it has not been contended anywhere that the Inspectors did not act under the colour of their office. The appellant did not plead, in defence, that the officers concerned were not know to him as Inspectors of the Corporation authorised to collect tax or that they could not show any authority for performing their duties. Hence, the prosecution has relied upon Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code which lays down :

"There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law".

6. On facts found, it has to be assumed that the appellant had objected to the taking of his buffalo, and, as this was of no avail, he had given a blow to Rattan Singh on the nose which bled and was also fractured as a result. It is true that, if the act against which a right of private defence is pleaded is not done in good faith the protection of Section 99 I.P.C. will not extend to it. It has, therefore, to be determined whether there was any such non-compliance with the provisions relating to the realisation of the tax, in attempting to take away the buffalo of the appellant, as to amount to want of good faith.

7. The High Court had accepted the submission on behalf of the prosecution that Section 161 of the Act empowered the Inspectors of the Corporation to seize and remove the appellant s buffalo for non-payment of the tax as it gave an overriding power to resort to this method of enforcing payment "at any time after the tax has become due". Section 161 of the Act lays down :

"161(1) If the tax on any vehicle or animal is not paid, then, instead of proceeding against the defaulter by distress as herein before provided, the Commissioner may, at any