[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Municipal Board Sirohi vs Kailash Chandra on 8 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:52612]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 646/1997
Municipal Board Sirohi, Sirohi through its Executive Officer,
Municipal Board, Sirohi
----Appellant
Versus
Shri Kailash Chandra S/o Shri Jasraj Kansara, C/o Sanwalia
Bartan Bhandar, Outside Sarjawav Gate, Sirohi (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : None present for the appellant
Municipal Board
Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Amicus Curiae
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
Judgment reserved on : 03/12/2025
Judgment pronounced on : 08/12/2025
1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.
has been filed by the Municipal Board, Sirohi challenging the
judgment dated 29.01.1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sirohi in Criminal Case No.159/1995, whereby the
respondent was acquitted of offences under Sections 132 and 265
of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act read with the Rajasthan
Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1962.
2. No one appeared for the appellant at the time of final
hearing. Since the case is old and relates to the year 1995, the
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:00:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52612] (2 of 6) [CRLA-646/1997]
Court has decided to dispose of the appeal on the basis of the
material on record and the grounds raised in the appeal. Learned
Public Prosecutor has been directed to save the interest of the
appellant. He has perused the file and addressed the court.
3. Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus
Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the respondent under the
Free Legal Aid Scheme of the Rajasthan State Legal Services
Authority. His fee shall be paid by the RSLSA as per rules.
4. Facts relevant for adjudication of the appeal are that on
29.03.1995 the Municipal Inspector, Moolaram Lohiya, saw a
handcart near Rajmata Dharamshala inside Sirohi town. The cart
was being pushed by Bhairaram, an employee of the respondent,
and contained eight sets of aluminium utensils. On being asked,
Bhairaram allegedly failed to produce any octroi receipt. The
Inspector seized the goods and brought them to the Municipal
office. On 30.03.1995, a notice was issued to the respondent
demanding octroi of Rs. 270/- and penalty of Rs. 2,700/-. The
respondent replied that the octroi had already been paid earlier
and that the utensils were being taken from his residence to his
shop after repairs because they had dents from earlier
transportation.
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:00:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52612] (3 of 6) [CRLA-646/1997]
5. The prosecution examined four witnesses and produced the
seizure memo, the notice and related papers. The defence
examined Bhairaram and produced several documents including
bills, transport receipts and octroi receipts (Ex.D/6 to Ex.D/12) to
show that the goods had already entered Sirohi earlier and octroi
was paid.
6. The trial Court found that the goods were not seized at the
octroi barrier but inside the town. It was noticed that the
independent witnesses, Shakoor Rehman and Than Singh, named
in the seizure memo were not examined. It was also found that
the seizure memo showed signs of interpolation and overwriting.
The Court accepted the defence receipts as reliable and held that
the prosecution had not shown that the utensils belonged to a
fresh consignment on which octroi was unpaid. Relying on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Puri Municipal Corporation
v. Indian Tobacco Co. Ltd. [AIR 1996 SC 534], the trial Court
held that a person cannot be presumed to be an evader of octroi
merely because he is found in possession of goods inside the
town. On this basis, the respondent was acquitted.
7. In the appeal, the Municipal Board has argued that the trial
Court committed errors of law and fact. It has been argued that
the learned Magistrate wrongly relied on the Puri Municipal
Corporation judgment without properly understanding its facts.
According to the appellant, the present case was different because
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:00:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52612] (4 of 6) [CRLA-646/1997]
the respondent's goods were actually stopped and found without
receipts. The appellant has also argued that the respondent gave
inconsistent explanations. At first, he said that octroi had been
paid on 19.03.1995, but later through his lawyer he relied on
three different dates. The appellant further submits that the trial
Court failed to compare the respondent's reply to the notice with
the earlier documents, which would have shown contradictions. It
is also argued that the trial Court ignored the statement of P.W.3
Raghunath Singh who was shown as a witness to the seizure.
According to the appellant, the trial Court was wrong in doubting
the seizure memo.
8. On the other hand, learned Amicus Curiae supported the
judgment. He submitted that octroi is an entry tax and the goods
must be intercepted at the entry point to presume evasion. He
further submitted that the defence documents clearly showed
prior payment of octroi and that the prosecution did not rebut
them. He also pointed out the non-examination of independent
witnesses and the suspicious corrections in the seizure memo.
9. After considering the entire record and the rival submissions,
this Court finds no reason to interfere with the acquittal. It is
admitted that the goods were not intercepted at the octroi post
but inside the city. As held by the Supreme Court in Puri Municipal
Corporation, octroi liability arises when goods are brought into the
town without paying entry tax, and a presumption of evasion can
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:00:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52612] (5 of 6) [CRLA-646/1997]
arise only when the interception is at the point of entry. The trial
Court has correctly applied this principle.
10. The prosecution also failed to produce the independent
witnesses Shakoor Rehman and Than Singh, whose names were
mentioned in the seizure memo. The memo itself shows clear
signs of overwriting and addition of names. These defects weaken
the prosecution case. The respondent produced receipts and bills
(Ex.D/6 to Ex.D/12) showing that the aluminium utensils had been
brought into Sirohi earlier in mixed consignments and that octroi
had been paid. The prosecution did not produce any evidence to
show that the seized utensils belonged to a new consignment. The
explanation given by the respondent's employee was reasonable
and remained unchallenged.
11. The alleged inconsistencies in the respondent's stand
regarding the dates of the receipts do not by themselves establish
evasion of octroi, particularly when the basic requirement of
proving interception at the entry point is not satisfied and when
the prosecution case itself suffers from serious gaps.
12. The principles governing an appeal against acquittal are well
settled. Unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, illegal,
or against the evidence, the appellate Court should not interfere.
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:00:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52612] (6 of 6) [CRLA-646/1997]
The view taken by the trial Court is a reasonable and possible view
on the evidence. Therefore, no interference is justified.
13. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment
dated 29.01.1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sirohi is affirmed. The respondent shall get all consequential
benefits of acquittal. The Amicus Curiae shall be paid his fee by
the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per rules.
(FARJAND ALI),J
19-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:00:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
