Thereafter the railway receipt had to be taken to the railway goods shed and delivery obtained of the goods.
It was within the limits of the Nagar Mahapalika but it was outside the octroi barrier.
The appellant Baladin Ram is the proprietor of Kashi Iron Foundry That foundry was located in the neighbourhood of the railway goods shed of Varanasi Cantonment Station.
Thereafter whatever articles which were manufactured at the foundry of the raw material were taken inside the city of Varanasi, octroi was paid on them and numberoctroi was paid on articles which were sent out to other places and which never entered the jurisdiction of the municipal authorities.
In the agreement which was entered into it was stated that the foundry had approached the Board for the grant of bonded warehouse facilities as companytemplated by Rules 204 to 222 of the Municipal Account Code and the Administrator of the Board had approved of the terms and companyditions set out in the agreement.
This admittedly was number done and the defence which was put up on behalf of the appellant Baladin was that for the last thirty years he had, by arrangement with the companycerned authorities, transported the goods directly from the railway shed.
The goods taken from the railway shed to the premises of the foundry did number have to cross the barrier.
The other appellant Ram Nath who is his employer has also been companyvicted and sentenced.
N. Grover, J. In these appeals by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court the main question is whether the companyviction of the appellant Baladin Ram Under Section 466 of the U.P. Nagar Maha Palika Adhiniyam and Under Section 467 of the Adhiniyam read with Rule 159 of the Municipal Account Code for which sentences of fine were imposed on him was legally sustainable.
