The delegation of power to create offenses under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, was constitutional, and there was a proper delegation under Section 503 of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS is a revisional application for setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under by-law No. 25 of the by-laws made under Section 245 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, (Bengal Act XV of 1932 ). The case for the prosecution is that the petitioner who owns a house by the side of a public lane within the Municipality of Asansol constructed a wall on the said lane by encroaching upon it. He did not remove the wall in spite of the requisition of the Chairman on behalf of the Commissioners of the Municipality made under the provision of Section 240 (l) (b) of the said Act.

( 2 ) THE petitioner denied that he had made any encroachment.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was found not guilty of the offence under Section 240 (1) (b)/500 of the Act and acquitted by the learned Magistrate who tried him. But the petitioner was found guilty under by-law No. 25, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- in default to undergo simple imprison-ment for two days.

( 4 ) SECTION 245 of the Bengal Municipal Act provides:"the Commissioners at a meeting may make by-laws - (a) to regulate or prohibit any description of. traffic on public street or on approaches to ghats or public ferries and to prevent obstructions, encroachments or excavations on or near such streets, ghats or ferries : section 503 of the Act provides: "in making any rule or by-law the Commissioners may with the sanction of the State Government, or in the case of any rule, model rule or by-law the State Government may direct that the breach thereof shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to fifty rupees and, when the breach is a continuing one, with a further fine not exceeding five rupees for every day after the date of the first conviction during which the offender is proved to have persisted in the offence". By notification No. 7501 M. dated 24-9-1936, published in the Calcutta Gazette dated 1-10-1936, the draft of by-laws, which had been framed by the Commissioners of the Asansol Municipality under Section 245 (a) and (b) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. and which the Government of Bengal (Ministry of Local-Self Government) proposed to confirm under Section 506 of the Act was published. By-law 23 runs as follows:"excavations and enclosures. No person shall, without the general or special permission of the Commissioners, make any excavation on any public street or on and near any ghat or public ferry or enclose any such street or any part thereof. "ground No. IX in the revisional application is: "by laws made under Section 245 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. so far as these provide for penalties and create offences are illegal and ultra-vires the Constitution".

( 5 ) MR. Roy appearing for the petitioner has put forward a two-Fold argument on behalf of his client. He has contended in the 1st place that the legislature has not formulated a legislative policy according to which offences are to be created, that the delegation of power to create offences amounts to a surrender by the legislature of its essential legislative powers and that offences can ba created not by any delegated authority but only by the Legislature itself. Mr. Roy's second contention is that even if there could be a successful delegation of such power, there has been no proper delegation by Section 503 of the Bengal Municipal Act, because two authorities, namely, the State Government and the Commissioners have been given undefined interdependent powers,

( 6 ) MR. Roy has referred to "in re, Art. 143, Constitution of India and Delhi Laws Act, 1912" Etc; (1951) SCR 747: (AIR 1951 SC 332 and Edward Mills Co. Ltd. . Beawar v. State of Aimer.

( 7 ) THE learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer contends that the Legislature has not delegated its essential legislative functions and that the Legislature has clearly defined the policy and made its intention clear. He has referred to the decisions reported in Subodh Kumar Bose v. Commissioners of Krishnagar Municipalit