Dismissed

Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune v. M/S. V.M. Matere and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Nov 2023APEAL/1182/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the Municipal Corporation of Pune's criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of two accused. The Court held that no merit existed as the accused had already paid the deficit octroi amount before receiving the demand notice.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal against the judgment of acquittal was dismissed.

Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune Vs M/S. V.M… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Chitra Sonawane. Cri.Appeal-1182-2006.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.1182 of 2006

¶3

Municipal Corporation of the
City of Pune,
through Shri Deepak Jagannath
Kulkarni, Age 51 years, Occu.Service,
as Checking Naka Officer of Octroi
Office, Pune

¶4

… Appellant
(Orig.Complainant)

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. M/s V.M. Matere,
Through Vishnu Mahadeo Matere,
Resident of Flat No.7, Plot No.67,
Sukhvani West Building,
Nehru Nagar, Telco Road, Pimpri,
Pune.

¶7

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2023.11.28 18:47:40 +0530

¶8

2. Shri Namdeo Gangadhar Padval,
Resident of 141, Neeraj Apartment,
Pimpri, Nehru Nagar, Pune-18.

¶9

3. State of Maharashtra,
(Copy to be serviced upon
Learned Government Pleader).…Respondents
 (Nos.1 and 2 Orig.Accused)

¶10

Mr Vishwanath Patil a/w Kewal Ahya a/w Laukik Deshmukh
for appellant/PMC.

¶11

Ms Meghna Gowalani (appointed Advocate) for respondents
No.1 and 2.
Mr AR Kapadnis, APP for the State.

¶12

 Page No. 1 of 5
____________________________________________
28 November 2023

¶13

Chitra Sonawane.

¶14

Cri.Appeal-1182-2006.doc

¶15

 Coram : R. N. Laddha, J.
 Reserved on : 4 October 2023.
 Pronounced on : 28 November 2023.

¶16

Judgment:

¶17

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶18

2.The appellant/original complainant has preferred this
appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.03.2004
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), PMC
Court, Pune, in CC No.3 of 2002. By the said judgment and
order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused/
respondents No.1 and 2 of the offence under Section 398 of
the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for
short, ‘the Act’) and Standing Order No.28 and Rule 29 of
Octroi Rules framed under the Act.

¶19

3.It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.09.2001, Mr
DJ Kulkarni, a Checking Naka Officer of the Pune Municipal
Corporation (‘the PMC’), was on duty on Nagar road when
the accused imported a Tata Hitachi machine within the
Municipal limits of PMC. The accused/respondents No.1 and
2 were asked to provide the original bill and documents to
prove the payment of octroi. They presented a delivery-cum-
challan bill and octroi receipt dated 31.1.2001 for

¶20

 Page No. 2 of 5

¶21

28 November 2023

¶22

Chitra Sonawane. Cri.Appeal-1182-2006.doc

¶23

Rs.30,141/-. However, upon examining the bill, it was found
that the machine’s actual value was Rs.36,00,000/-, but the
accused had shown the value of the machine as
Rs.10,04,700/-. Based on this value, octroi of Rs.30,141/- was
paid. The accused were issued a demand notice dated
23.10.2001 through RPAD. Subsequently, they paid the deficit
amount of octroi of Rs.41,859/-. Therefore, the prosecution
alleges that the accused willfully defrauded the PMC by not
paying the requisite octroi. Consequently, Mr DJ Kulkarni,
the Checking Naka Officer, filed a complaint before the
learned trial Court.

¶24

4.At the trial, to substantiate the indictment against the
accused, the learned trial Court recorded the evidence of a
witness, namely Deepak Jagannath Kulkarni(PW 1), the
Checking Naka Officer, only. The statement of the accused
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
came to be thereafter recorded, consisting of denial and false
implication. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties,
the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents
No.1 and 2.

¶25

5.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant/PMC has

¶26

 Page No. 3 of 5
____________________________________________
28 November 2023

¶27

Chitra Sonawane. Cri.Appeal-1182-2006.doc

¶28

preferred this appeal.

¶29

6. In order to appreciate the controversy, it will be relevant to refer to Section 398 of the Act, which reads thus:

¶30

“ Penalty for evasion of octroi or toll : Where any vehicle, animal or goods imported into the limits of the City are liable to the payment of toll or octroi any person who, with the intention of defrauding the Corporation, causes or abets the introduction of or himself introduces or attempts to introduce within the limits of the City any such vehicle, animal or goods upon which payment of the toll or octroi due on such introduction has neither been made nor tendered, shall, on conviction, be punished with fine which may extend to ten times the amount of such toll or octroi or to two hundred and fifty rupees, whichever may be greater.”

¶31

7.After examining the available evidence, it is clear that
the appellant/PMC demanded Rs.41,859/- in its notice dated
23.10.2001. The accused received this demand notice on
12.12.2001. The notice stated that if the amount of
Rs.41,859/- is not paid, then legal action may be taken against
the accused for paying less octroi. However, the accused had
already paid this amount on 30.10.2001 and had complied
with the notice dated 23.10.2001. This establishes the fact
that the accused had paid the balance amount as demanded by
the PMC prior to receiving the notice. Additionally, although
the alleged incident dates back to 22.09.2001, the complaint

¶32

 Page No. 4 of 5
____________________________________________
28 November 2023

¶33

Chitra Sonawane. Cri.Appeal-1182-2006.doc

¶34

was lodged only on 17.01.2002, after a delay of
approximately four months. There is no explanation provided
for the delay in filing the complaint. It has been almost 22
years since the alleged incident occurred. The offences in
question are only subject to monetary penalties, and the octroi
amount was already settled before the demand notice was
received.

¶35

8.In view of this, there is no merit in this appeal, and the
same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal stands
dismissed.

¶36

[ R. N. Laddha, J. ]

¶37

 Page No. 5 of 5
____________________________________________
28 November 2023

Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune v. M/S. V.M. Matere and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune v. M/S. V.M. Matere and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Ivy Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chandresh Sampat and Anr.

Captain Vikram Raj Manohar Vs Yadvi Kunder and Anr.

Sanjay Dadu Ohal Vs Narayan Bhagwan Khare and Anr.

Digambar Dhaku Bandal (Since Deceased - through Legal Heir) Vs Ajit Gajanan Mahakal and Anr.

M/S. Rahul Agro Input Industries Vs Vikas Misal and Ors.

Mohini Rajendrabapu Kumkar Vs Manisha Vijay Nahar and Anr.