Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Lahiri, Mitter
ABANINDRA KUMAR MAITY - Appellant
Versus
A. K. BISWAS - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 2075 Of 1953
Decided On : JANUARY 08, 1954
PUBLIC DEMANDS RECOVERY ACT - CERTIFICATE - VALIDITY - REQUIREMENTS - JURISDICTION - ARREST - WARRANT - EXTENSION - ARTICLE 227, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SCOPE - EXERCISE OF POWER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a certificate debtor, challenged the validity of two certificate proceedings initiated against him under the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. The first certificate case related to an alleged concealed income for which the petitioner was assessed to pay income tax. The second certificate case related to a penalty imposed on the petitioner for non-payment of income tax. The petitioner contended that both the certificates were invalid and the proceedings were mala fide.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the certificates were invalid as they did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Public Demands Recovery Act. The court also held that the notices under Section 7 of the Act were not signed by the Certificate Officer in his own hand as required by the rules framed under the Act. Further, the court held that the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner was without jurisdiction as the Certificate Officer did not satisfy himself about the conditions required under Section 29 of the Act before issuing the warrant.
Issues: 1. Whether the certificates issued in both certificate cases were valid? 2. Whether the notices under Section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act were valid? 3. Whether the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner was valid? 4. Whether the court could exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the certificate proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the certificates were invalid as they did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Public Demands Recovery Act. The court relied on the decision in Baijnath Sahai v. Ramgut Singh, where it was held that if there is any mis-description or omission in respect of a material particular in a certificate, the entire proceeding based upon the certificate is void. 2. The court held that the notices under Section 7 of the Act were not signed by the Certificate Officer in his own hand as required by the rules framed under the Act. The court relied on Rule 2 of the Rules framed under Section 38 of the Act, which provides that the notice under Section 7 shall be signed by the Certificate Officer or such ministerial officer as may be authorised in this behalf. 3. The court held that the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner was without jurisdiction as the Certificate Officer did not satisfy himself about the conditions required under Section 29 of the Act before issuing the warrant. The court held that the Certificate Officer was required to record reasons in writing before issuing the warrant of arrest, which he failed to do. 4. The court held that it could exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the certificate proceedings. The court held that the Certificate Officer acted in excess of his jurisdiction and also acted in flagrant violation of some of the mandatory provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute and directed that the certificate proceedings in both certificate cases be quashed. The court also allowed the petitioner the costs of the rule.
( 1 ) THIS is a Rule under Article 227, Constitution of India obtained by the petitioner against certain proceedings pending against him before the Certificate Officer, Midnapore. The facts giving rise to this Rule may be stated as follows :
( 2 ) IN 1950 the Income-tax Officer, Midnapore, assessed the petitioner to pay an income-tax to the extent of Rs. 6,613/- for an alleged concealed income of Rs. 28,101/- for the year 1946-47 in Income Tax Case No. 162-M of 1946-47 and against that assessment order the petitioner filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax which is still pending.
( 3 ) ON 26-3-1952, at the instance of the Income Tax Officer, Midnapore, the Certificate Officer of Midnapore started a proceeding under the Public Demands Recovery Act against the petitioner which was registered and numbered as Certificate Case No. 62-P/8 of 1951 and 1952 and directed a notice under Section 7 of the said Act to be issued. On receipt of the notice under Section 7 the petitioner filed an application for staying the proceeding till the disposal of the appeal by the Assistant Commissioner, which was rejected on 25-5-1952.
( 4 ) ON failure of the petitioner to pay up his dues under the certificate, a distress warrant was issued against him on 26-6-1952, but it could not be executed.
( 5 ) ON 30-8-1952, the Certificate Officer recorded an order in the order-sheet to the effect that the certificate debtor was a zemindar and an influential man of the locality and directed a notice to be issued upon him to show cause why a warrant of arrest should not be issued. On 13-19, September, 1952, the Certificate Officer received a telegram from the certificate debtor asking for time till the Jagadhatri Pujah. Upon the telegram the Certificate Officer directed the petitioner to pay up his dues by 20-10-1952, and stayed the issue of distress warrant and warrant of arrest till that date. The order sheet of this date contains an entry to the following effect; "inform C. D. Put up on 21-10-52. "
( 6 ) THE petitioner states in his petition, and it is not denied by the opposite party, that although the order, dated September 13/19, 1952, was directed to be communicated to him, it was not in fact so communicated.
( 7 ) ON 21-10-1952, the Certificate Officer passed the following order : "no payment. Issue D. W. and A. W. Returnable by 21-11-52. "
( 8 ) ON 25-11-1952, the petitioner filed an application showing cause why the warrant of arrest should not be issued against him. In this application the petitioner stated, inter alia, that the petitioner was the owner of agricultural lands the value of which would be several lakhs of rupees and the amount of demand could be easily recovered from said agricultural lands. This application was considered by the Certificate Officer on 8-12-1952, on which date he passed the following order :"d. W. and A. W. have already been Issued against the C. D. Await the result of execution. In the meantime send the objection petition to R. O. (which expression, we are informed, means requisitioning officer; i. e. the Income Tax Officer in the present case) for favour of report on the points recited in the objection petition and also request R. O. to report if further proceedings will be stayed against the C. D, to 6-1-53. "
( 9 ) ON 5-1-1953, that is to say, one day before the hearing of the petition of objection, the petitioner was arrested by the Nazir of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Contai, at a, time when he was returning from the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer and produced before the Sub-Divisional Officer who released him on a personal recognizance bond for Rs. 10,000/ -.
( 10 ) ON 6-1-1953, the petitioner appeared before the Certificate Officer, Midnapore to file an objection against his arrest whereupon he was required to furnish a fresh personal recognizance bond for Rs. 6,000/- which he did.
( 11 ) THEN after various adjournments the Certificate Officer, Midnapore, re
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
