Bagpat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.and Others vs Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Meerut and Others

G.P. Mathur, J.—The Excise Inspector (Molasses), Bagpat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., filed a criminal complaint against M/s. Bagpat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Bagpat, District Meerut through its Occupier and General Manager and three others for their prosecution under Section 11 of U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Adhiniyam'') on the ground that the petitioners (accused) had not followed the provisions of Section 5 (a), 5 (b), 5 (c) and 5 (d) of the Adhiniyam. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused to face trial. In pur7 sunance of the summons issued to the accused petitioners, they appeared before the learned Magistrate and applied for bail which was granted. Subsequently the accused have filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr. PC. for quashing of the complaint and all proceedings in pursuance thereof which are pending in the Court of learned Magistrate.

Shri U.S. Awasthi learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence as the complaint had not been filed by a person who was competent to do so under Section 13 of the Adhiniyam and in these circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioners was wholly without jurisdiction. It maybe noticed that this plea has not been specifically raised in the petition. However as the State has not filed any counteraffidavit and the plea raised being a pure question of law, I consider it proper to decide the same on merit.

Subsection (1) of Section 13 of the Adhiniyam reads as follows:

"13 (1)No Court shall take Cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by an Excise Officer of or above the rank of Excise Inspectors^

The contention of Sri Awasthi is that in view of the above provision, the cognizance can be taken only on the report of an Excise Officer who is above the rank of Excise Inspector. The language used in subsection (1) of Section 13 of the Adhiniyam, as quoted above, is not very clear and may support the aforesaid contention. Sri Mahendra Pratap the learned A.G.A. produced before the Court the Hindi version of U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 and Section 13 (1) therein reads as follows:

The Hindi version shows that the cognizance can be taken on the report of an Excise Inspector or of an Excise Officer who is higher in rank to Excise Inspector. The Hindi version is very clear and it appears that the expression " an excise officer of or above the rank of excise inspector " is not a correct translation of Section 13 (1) of the Adhiniyam as it stands in Hindi. The correct expression would be "an excise inspector or an excise officer above the rank of Excise Inspector."

The bill for enacting U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam was passed in Hindi by the Legislative assembly of February 12, 1964 and by the legislative council on August�4,1964. It received the assent of the President on October 7,1964. The English translation of the Adhiniyam was published in the Extraordinary Gazette on November 9, 1964 and the notification reads as follows:

"In pursuance of the provisions of clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, the Governor is pleased to order the publication of the following English translation of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 (Uttar Pradesh Adhiniyam Sankhya XXIV of 1964), as passed by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature and assented to by the President on October 7,1964."

The original Adhiniyam has been passed in Hindi and the English version is Us translation which is required to be published in the Gazette under Clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India. The language of subsection (1) of Section 13 in the Hindi version of the Adhiniyam is quite clear and an Excise Inspector is authorised to file a complaint on the basis of which Court can take cognizance of the offence.

It may be mentioned at this stage that there is no conflict between the Hindi version and the English version of the Adhiniyam and there is only an ambiguity in the English version. The question whether in such a case Hindi version can be looked into was considered by a Full Bench of seven Judges of our Court in Mata Badal Pandey and another v. Board of Revenue, U.P and others, 1974 U.P.T.C. 570. The following question was referred for decision of the Full Bench:

"Whether it will be a sound rule of interpretation or construction of statutes that if there appears to be some doubt or ambiguity in the authorised text in English language of an Act enacted in Hindi by the Legislature of Uttar Pradesh, then for resolving the ambiguity or doubt and for ascertainingthe correct meaning thereof, reference can be made to the corresponding Hindi text and reliance placed thereon?"

The answer given by the Bench is as follows:

"Where there is some doubt or ambiguity in any provision in the authoritative English text, it permissible to look into the Hindi text to remove the doubt or ambiguity."

In view of this authoritative pronouncement, it is permissible to look into the Hindi version. This makes the position absolutely clear that an Excise Inspector is competent to file a complaint.

The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners can be examined from another angle, Section 2(c) of the Adhiniyam provides that ''Excise Officer'' shall have the meaning assigned to it in the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910. Section 3 (2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 lays down that in this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context ''excise officer'' means a collector or any officer or person appointed or invested with powers under Section 10. Section 10 (2) (d) of the U.P. Excise Act lays down that the State Government may by notification applicable to whole of Uttar Pradesh or any district or local areas comprised therein appoint officers of the Excise Department of such classes and with such designations, powers and duties under this Act as the State Government may think fit and define areas within which such powers and duties maybe exercised and performed. Therefore, in view of this provision, the State Government has the power to appoint anyone as officer of the Excise Department and give designations, power and duties under the Act. Once a notification is issued by the State Government under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Excise Act appointing anyone as Excise Officer the said person shall exercise Sowers and duties of the Excise Officer as efined under Section 3 (2) of U.P. Excise Act. In Chungur v. State, AIR 1952 All. 533, it has been observed that the State Government issued a notification on 1371910 authorising amongst others police officers including Provincial Chowkidari Force, Town. Village andRoad Chowkidar to perform the acts and duties mentioned in Section 50 of Excise Act. This notification was issued under Section 50 by virtue of the powers conferred upon the Government by Section 10 of the Act. Under Section 3 (4) of Excise Act, chpwkidar thereupon became an excise officer. In view of the notification issued by the State '' Government, the Excise Inspector was holding the powers of the Excise Officer and, therefore, he was competent to file the complaint against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, perfectly justified in entertaining such a complaint and in taking cognizance of the offence.

No other point was urged. The petitions lack merit and are hereby dismissed. Stay orders are vacated.

Petitions dismissed.