Authority: Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 10 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Applicant: Assistant Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation (Municipal Corporation).
  • Respondents: Director/Manager, Mobile Telecommunication Limited and others.
  • Criminal Application (ALP) No.223 of 2018 filed to seek leave to challenge the order of acquittal dated 05‑04‑2017 passed by the Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nashik in S.C.C. No.3119 of 2011, where the complaint was dismissed for default.
  • Counsel for Applicant: Mr. Rupesh Lanjekar. Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr. Raveen Palekar (through VC) with Ms. Rashmi Tendulkar, APP for Respondent‑State.
  • The complaint arose from alleged non‑payment of octroi; the octroi amount of Rs 1,62,268 was paid by cheque, after which a demand notice imposed a penalty ten times the octroi amount.
  • The complaint invoked Sections 398, 399 and 481 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (as then in force) and Rule 40 of Nashik Municipal Corporation (Octroi) Rules, 2005.
  • Records show the petitioner filed an affidavit of examination in chief and supporting documents in March 2016. From December 2016 onward, the accused (Respondent No.1) was absent, leading to issuance of a bailable warrant.
  • After securing the accused’s presence, the municipal corporation’s witness was absent on 22‑02‑2017 and 08‑03‑2017, dates on which the accused was present.
  • The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution, noting the petitioner’s failure to produce its witness for cross‑examination on those two occasions and the long pendency of the case.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court, after considering the submissions and the record, concluded that the nature of the offence, payment of the octroi, and the municipal corporation’s own failure to prosecute warranted no interference with the magistrate’s dismissal.
  • Consequently, the Criminal Application seeking leave to challenge the acquittal was rejected; leave was refused.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Municipal Tax Enforcement