Babu Ram Vs. Emperor

Babu Ram vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided May 31, 1918

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/469276

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/469276
Court: Allahabad
Judge: P.C. Banerji, J.
Decided On: May 31, 1918
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

U.P. Municipalities Act (II of 1916,), Section 155 - Octroi duty, person acting as broker of consignee, whether liable to pay--Failure to pay octroi duty--Offence. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Babu Ram

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1919All26; 46Ind.Cas.848

Excerpt

u.p. municipalities act (ii of 1916,), section 155 - octroi duty, person acting as broker of consignee, whether liable to pay--failure to pay octroi duty--offence. - p.c. banerji, j.1. the applicant babu ram has been convicted under section 155 of the municipalities act, no. ii of 1916, on a charge of having introduced into the limits of the municipality certain bags of sugar without payment of octroi duty. it has been fully proved by the evidence, which the court below has believed, that the applicant, who is a broker, took delivery of sixty bags of sugar and did not pay the octroi duty payable for the goods. it is said that as he was merely a broker and the agent of the consignee, the consignee should have been punished. this contention is, in my opinion, not tenable. the person liable to punishment is the person who introduces the goods into the limits of the municipality without payment of octroi duty. it was the accused who did this, and, therefore, he has been rightly convicted. i do not consider the fine inflicted on him to be unduly excessive having regard to the circumstances of the case. the application is dismissed.

Full Judgment

P.C. Banerji, J.

1. The applicant Babu Ram has been convicted under Section 155 of the Municipalities Act, No. II of 1916, on a charge of having introduced into the limits of the Municipality certain bags of sugar without payment of octroi duty. It has been fully proved by the evidence, which the Court below has believed, that the applicant, who is a broker, took delivery of sixty bags of sugar and did not pay the octroi duty payable for the goods. It is said that as he was merely a broker and the agent of the consignee, the consignee should have been punished. This contention is, in my opinion, not tenable. The person liable to punishment is the person who introduces the goods into the limits of the Municipality without payment of octroi duty. It was the accused who did this, and, therefore, he has been rightly convicted. I do not consider the fine inflicted on him to be unduly excessive having regard to the circumstances of the case. The application is dismissed.

Same Parties Babu Ram vs Emperor Same Subject Criminal Same Judge P.C. Banerji, J.

Criminal