The Ahmedabad Municipality vs Maganlal Khushaldas

Batty, J.—In this case the accused person was charged with having infringed the provisions of Section 96, District Municipal Act; by building in contravention of the orders of the Municipality. The appropriate issue in that case was, whether the orders of the Municipality have been contravened. But the Magistrate has decided the case upon another ground, viz. that the order passed by the Municipality was an injudicious order. Ho does not find that it was ultra vires but has practically assumed and arrogated to himself the discretionary power vested by law in the Municipality, to determine whether the building should or should not be erected. This is manifestly an erroneous basis for the decision of the case and although this Court does not ordinarily interfere with orders of acquittal in revision, yet it cannot be expected that it would hesitate to do so, where the acquittal is based not upon an appreciation of doubtful evidence, but upon a manifest error in law appearing on the face of the judgment. To allow such a judgment to stand would be to encourage a supposition that Magisterial or other Courts can question the discretion of public bodies, vested in them by Statute.

We accordingly set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Honorary Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad, on the 1st August 1906 and direct the return of the papers to the Magistrate, that, after such further enquiry as may be necessary, he may dispose of the case in accordance with the law.