Against this order the appellant preferred a criminal revision application in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ajmer.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 13, 1959, of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Criminal Revision No.
April 24.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. On June 13,1950, the Municipal Committee, Ajmer, respondent 2, issued a numberice against the appellant, the Durgah Committee, Ajmer, under s. 153 of the Ajmer Merwara Municipalities Regulation, 1925 VI of 1925 hereafter called the Regulation calling upon it to carry out certain repairs in the Jhalra Wall which was in a dilapidated companydition.
In the proceedings before the learned Magistrate the appellant raised certain pleas.
These pleas were rejected and an order was passed calling upon the appellant to pay the dues in question by August 30, 1956.
Under s. 222 4 of the Regulation this sum became recoverable from the appellant as a tax.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
This numberice was served on July 3, 1950.
The appellant did number companyply with the said requisition and so respondent 2 served another numberice on the appellant under s. 220 of the Regulation inti mating to it that the required repairs would be carried out at the expense of respondent 2 and that the companyt incurred by it would be recovered from the appellant.
A numberice of demand in that behalf was issued on the appellant on April 1, 1952, and in pursuance of the said numberice respondent 2 applied to the Additional Tehsildar and Magistrate II Class, Ajmer, for the recovery of the said amount under s. 234 of the Regulation.
Mukat Behari Lal Bhargava and Naunit Lal, for respondent No.2.
17,414.
Even so the appellant took numbersteps to make the repairs and so respondent 2 proceeded to get the repair work done at its expense which amounted to Rs.
C. Chatterjee, J. L. Datta and C. P. Lal, for the appellant.
162 of 1959.
It is against this order that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave and the short question which the appeal raises for our decision is whether the Magistrate who entertained the application made before him by respondent 2 under s. 234 was an inferior criminal companyrt under s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
47 of 1957.
