JUDGMENT

Bennett, J. - This is an application in revision by a man named Ganeshi Lal, a resident of Fyzabad. He is a son of one of the proprietor of the firm Messrs. Gobreram Tulsiram. He was found guilty by the Magistrate (who refers to him as the proprietor of the firm) of offences u/s 155 of the Municipalities Act and Rule 159 of the Municipal Account Code. Under the latter provision and the Schedule to the Code he was fined Rs. 50: u/s 155 of the Act he was fined Rs. 1,000. In appeal to the Sessions Judge the convictions were upheld. As, however, it was found that only a technical offence had been committed u/s 155, the minimum penalty under that section, namely Rs. 904, was imposed. The fine of Rs. 50 under Rule 159 of the Account Code was maintained.

2. The proprietors of the firm are, I understand, the Appellant's father, Gobrey Ram and a man named K.P. Shah. In his judgment the Sessions Judge refers to K.P. Shah as the proprietor of a Calcutta firm, but Counsel before me stated that actually there is only one firm with these two proprietors and head quarters in Calcutta. The actual facts about this are, however, not material.

3. The proved and relevant facts are that a consignment of sheet iron was despatched by goods train from Calcutta to Fyzabad by K.P. Shah addressed to self. The consignment arrived at Fyzabad On or before the 2nd February. 1942. The applicant took formal delivery on the 2nd February, but left the sheet iron lying in the Railway goods-shed at Fyzabad. His case was that he had been directed by K.P. Shah to re-book the consignment to Cawnpore. K.P. Shah himself arrived, however, on the 3rd February, 1942, and re-booked the consignment to Cawnpore. Or rather signed a forwarding note asking for waggon accommodation. The actual re-booking and despatch to Cawnpore did not take place till March.

4. It was the prosecution case that the applicant Ganeshi Lal, removed the sheet iron from the railway goods-shed, and that other goods, namely scrap iron, were alterwards booked to Cawnpore. Had this been proved there would have been no doubt about the correctness of the conviction. It was found, however, that the prosecution case with respect to the change in the goods was not proved and that only the sheet iron received at Fazabad was re-booked to Cawnpore. The question for consideration on these facts is whether the applicant was or was not guilty of either or both of the offences stated.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant conceded that it was difficult to oppose the conviction under Rule 159 of the Municipal Account Code. That rule provides that before taking delivery of goods from the railway the importer must take the railway receipt and invoice to the head octroi office and obtain a municipal stamp thereon. The head octroi office shall take details of the consignment and if the goods are found to be liable to the payment of octroi the receipt and invoice are abstracted into a railway receipt and invoice register. As the applicant admittedly took delivery, though it was only formal delivery, of the goods and did not comply with the provisions of Rule 159 before so doing, he was clearly guilty of an offence under this rule. His defence was that he was informed by the local railway authorities that in the circumstances, as he did not intend to remove the goods, there was no necessity for him to comply with this procedure. That may be true, and the clerk or clerks concerned may have thought that the information they give him was correct, but this does not affect the case against him. If was incumbent upon him to comply with the Rule 6. The Schedule imposes a fine extending up to Rs. 50 for a breach of certain rules, including Rule 159. The relevant entry in the Schedule reads:

"Failure to have the railway receipt and invoice or declaration stamped at the head octroi office before taking delivery of the goods, except in the case of goods declared as for immediate export and carried through the municipality under th