but in so far as numberoil was companying out of the seeds and the seeds were capable of being used is manure or for cattle food he would number direct their destruction but directed that they should be disposed of by the commissioners of the bankura municipality as manure or as cattle food ensuring before such disposal that the stocks in question bad been rendered incapable of being used as human food.
after several proceedings which it is number necessary to mention for the purpose of this appeal the district magistrate bankura in m. p. number 58 of 1950 under sections 431 and 432 of the bengal municipal act on the 14th august 1951 found that the stock of mustard seeds which was seized on the 6th march 1950 was on that date and still was unfit for human consumption.
chunder j. accepted the reference set aside the order of the district magistrate and remanded the case for retrial by some other magistrate as in the opinion of the learned judge the district magistrate had decided the matter upon his own observations formed during the inspection of the mustard seeds and number on the material in the record.
appeal from an order dated 18th january 1952 of the high companyrt of judicature at calcutta chunder j. in criminal reference case number 110 of 1951.
sri n.c.taluqdar for the appellants urged that the order made by the district magistrate bankura under sections 431 and 432 of the bengal municipal act 1932 was an order for forfeiture of property within the meaning of the proviso to the rule and chunder j. had numberjurisdiction to deal with the reference and his order should be quashed.
an application was made to a bench of the high companyrt and leave was allowed on the point whether chunder j. had jurisdiction sitting singly to bear the reference in view of the rule cited above.
the relevant facts may be shortly stated as follows.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 23 of 1952.
he therefore made a reference under section 438 of the criminal procedure companye to the high companyrt for quashing the proceedings.
c. talukdar and a. d. dutt for the appellant.
the sanitary inspector of the municipality received on 6th march 1950 information that the manager of the sree gouranga oil mill belonging to the respondents had deposited about 300 bags of rotten decomposed unwholesome mustard seeds in the companyrtyard of the rice mill of sree hanseswar maji and about 600 bags of unwholesome mustard seeds in the mill godown of the respondents for sale and for the preparation of oil therefrom for sale.
on an application made by him in that behalf the sub divisional officer bankura duly issued a search warrant and the sanitary inspector on the same day found in possession of the respondents a huge quantity of mustard seeds which were found to be highly unsound unwholesome and unfit for human consumption.
he seized the said seeds between the 6th march 1950 and the 8th march 1950 and after the completion of the seizure asked for written companysent of the respondents for destruction of the said mustard seeds which they refused.
ajit kumar dutta and s. n. mukherjee for the respondents.
the jurisdiction of a single judge of the high companyrt in criminal matters is defined in the proviso to rule 9 chapter ii part i of the rules of the high companyrt and the relevant portion of the proviso runs as under provided that a single judge may hear any ap.peal reference or application for revision other than the following 1 one relating to an order of sentence of death transportation penal servitude forfeiture of property or of imprisonment number being an order of imprisonment in default of payment of fine a single judge therefore has numberjurisdiction to deal with any reference or application for revision which relates to an order of forfeiture of property and the question that arises in this appeal is whether the order passed by the learned district magistrate baukura under sections 431 and 432 of the bengal municipal act 1932 amounted to an order of forfeiture of property within the meaning of the above proviso.
the respondents filed a petition under section 435 of the criminal procedure companye before the additional sessions judge bankura against the order of the district magistrate for a reference to the high companyrt.
the respondents are the proprietors of several oil mills in the town of bankura within the bankura municipality.
march 12.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. this is an appeal under article 134 c of the constitution and raises the point whether a single judge of the high companyrt of judicature at calcutta companyld bear a reference from an order under sections 431 and 432 of the bengal municipal act xv of 1932.
