Hiralal vs A.A. Patil, Collector Damoh

P.V. Dixit, C.J.—The facts of this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are that the applicant is the manager of a public trust known as Shri Deo Parashnath Bada Mandir, Sigrampur Trust. The applicant sold a house belonging to the trust. He says that from the proceeds of the sale he purchased another property for the benefit of the trust. On 16 February 1959 he made an application u/s 14 (1) of the M. P. Public Trusts Act to the Registrar for sanctioning the sale of the property already effected by him. On this application, the Collector started an enquiry into the circumstances in which the applicant sold the trust property, and finding that the petitioner had contravered the provisions of Section 14 in selling the property without obtaining the previous sanction of the Registrar the Collector sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 250 u/s 33 (2) of the Act. By this application the petitioner challenges the validity of the imposition of the fine on the ground that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to punish him for any contravention of the provisions of the Act.

This contention must be accepted. Section 33, no doubt, prescribes a penalty for contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. There is, however, no special procedure prescribed for the trial of any contravention of the provisions of the Act. That being so, the trial for contravention of the Act has to be under the Code of Criminal Procedure as provided in Section 5 of the Code. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 says that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Code, subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigation, inquiry, or trial. It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Bhim Sen vs. State of U. P. A. I. R. 1956 S. C. 435, that the jurisdiction of criminal Courts u/s 5 of Criminal Procedure Code is comprehensive, and that to the extent that no machinery is set up under any Act for the trial of any particular case the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal Court cannot be held to have been excluded. It the Registrar thought that the applicant had contravened the provisions of Section 14, then he should have moved the ordinary machinery prescribed in the Code for punishing the applicant. He himself had no jurisdiction to punish the petitioner, u/s 33 of the Act. The order of the Registrar imposing a fine of Rs. 250 on the applicant is therefore quashed. The amount of security deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. There will be no order as to costs.