SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(UK) 32

IRSHAD HUSSAIN
NAGAR PALIKA HAIDWANI – Appellant
Versus
JOGENDRA SINGH – Respondent


IRSHAD HUSSAIN, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6/9/1985 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Revision No. 151 of 1984, whereby the application is revision was allowed and the order dated 24/8/1984 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani in Criminal Case No. 561 of 1984 under Section 155 of U. P. Municipalities Act was set aside.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the respondent. None appeared on behalf of the revisionistnagar Palika, Haldwani.

( 3 ) IT needs to be pointed out at the outset that Section 155 of the U. P. Municipalities Act (for short the Act) provides for penalty for evasion of the octroi dues. One Jogendra Singh had transported wood within the local limits of Nagar Palika, Haldwani from the direction of Ranibagh Murdaghat in his trucks on 8/4/1983 without paying the octroi dues and thereby made himself liable to penalty under Section 155 of the Act. To enforce the provision, complaint was filed on 19/10/1983 and the cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate on the same day summoning the above named defaulter for 11/11/1983. Later on 4/6/1984, an application under Section 473 of the Code




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top