ORDER Naik, J. The order in this criminal revision shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revisions Nos. 171 to 180 of 1968. These are all references by the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arising out of proceedings before the Magistrate, First Class, Harda, under Section 77(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the old Act') read with section 2 (2) (iii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the new Act'). Facts relevant for our purpose may shortly be stated as follows. Non-applicant No. 2 in all the revisions are persons from whom octroi tax is due to the Municipal Council, Harda, non-applicant No. 1, in respect of good Imported by them into the municipal limits of Harda for sale, consumption or use there. In order to recover the octroi tax due from the non-applicants, the Municipal Council first issued to them a bill, then a notice of demand and, on 29-7-1966, made an application to the Magistrate, First Glass, Harda, for its recovery under Section 77(1) of the old Act. The learned Magistrate dismissed the applications holding, inter alia, that as the recovery of octroi tax related to a period prior to the coming into force of the new Act (this new Act came into force on 1-2-1962), it could not now be recovered under Section 77(1) of the old Act read with Section 2(2) (iii) of the new Act as no action had been initiated for the recovery of the tax under the old Act within the meaning of Section 2(2) (iii) of the new Act. Section 2(2) of the new Act contains a saving clause. Section 2v2)(l) and Section 2(2) (iii) with which we are concerned are in the following terms: 2 (2) (i). Section 2(2) of the new Act contains a saving clause. Section 2v2)(l) and Section 2(2) (iii) with which we are concerned are in the following terms: 2 (2) (i). All Municipal Committees, Municipal Councils, Municipal Boards and Notified Area Committees, constituted, committees or sub-committees constituted, or appointed, limits defined, appointments, rules, orders and bye-laws made, notifications and notices issued, taxes imposed or assessed, fees fixed, contracts entered into, suits instituted and proceedings undertaken or any other things done or action taken under the said Acts or any enactment thereby repealed shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been respectively constituted, appointed, defined, made, issued, imposed or assessed, fixed, entered into, instituted, undertaken, done or taken under this Act. 2(2) (iii). Any action initiated for recovery of taxes under the said Acts or any enactments thereby repealed shall be continued in accordance with the provisions thereof. Thus Under Clause (i) octroi tax assessed or imposed under the old Act is deemed to be assessed or imposed under the new Act. But any 'action initiated for recovery of taxes' under the old Act are to be continued in accordance with the provisions of the old Act. It is not disputed that in the cases before us the octroi tax has been imposed and assessed under the old Act and though it is denied to be assessed and imposed under the new Act, it is not being recovered under the provisions of the new Act. It is being recovered under the provisions of Section 77(1) of the old Act and the only question that arises for consideration is whether it can be so recovered. It is not disputed that it can be so recovered provided 'any action had been initiated for its recovery' under the old Act, when the new Act came into force. Now, in Criminal Revision No. 170 of 1968, the non-applicant Municipal Council has in its application before the Magistrate, First Class, Harda, alleged that it had served on the non-applicant No. 2 a bill dated 9-11-1961 and further demand notice on 24-2-1962 for the payment of the octroi tax due from him in respect of the goods brought by him within the octroi limits of Harda Municipal Council. The new Act had come into force on 1-2-1962. The new Act had come into force on 1-2-1962. Therefore, the only step taken by the non-applicant Municipal Council for the recovery of the octroi tax from the non- applicant No. 2 before 1-2-1962, the date on which the new Act came into force, was that a bill had been presented to the Assessee. The question, therefore, is whether the presentation of a bill to the non-applicant Assessee before the coming into force of the new Act was 'action initiated' for the recovery of octroi tax within the meaning of section 2 (2) (iii) of the new Act. Under Section 76 of the old Act, the State Government had been empowered to frame rules regulating the collection of taxes which would include octroi tax. Such rules had been framed with reference to Section 77(1) also and were in the following terms: (a) When any arrears of municipal taxes or any other money claimable by a municipal committee under the Act is to be recovered, the committee shall cause to be presented to the person liable for the payment thereof a bill for the sum due. (b) Every such bill shall specify- (i) the period for which, and (ii) the property, occupation or thing in respect of which the sum is claimed. If the sum for which any bill has been presented as aforesaid is not paid into the municipal office or to a person specially authorized by the committee to receive such payments within 15 days from the presentation thereof, the committee shall cause to be served upon the person liable for the payment of the said sum a notice of demand in Form A. If the person liable for the payment of the said sum does not within 15 days from the service of such notice of demand, pay the sum demanded in the notice, the committee may apply for warrant for the recovery of the sum to such Magistrate as the District Magistrate may authorize in this behalf. Every such application shall be stamped with a court-fee stamp of one rupee and eight annas. No process fee shall be paid on the first application. *** *** *** The rules thus provided an integrated procedure for the recovery of octroi tax which began with the presentation of 'bills' to the Assessee. Every such application shall be stamped with a court-fee stamp of one rupee and eight annas. No process fee shall be paid on the first application. *** *** *** The rules thus provided an integrated procedure for the recovery of octroi tax which began with the presentation of 'bills' to the Assessee. Consequently the presentation of a 'bill' was the first essential step in the recovery of the octroi tax ; and as soon as that first step was taken, 'action' was initiated for the recovery of the tax within the meaning of Section 2(2) (iii) of the new Act and such action shall thereafter be continued in accordance with the provisions of the old Act. The learned Magistrate appears to think that an 'action' is initiated for the recovery of the tax within the meaning of Section 2(2) (iii) of the new Act when an application is made to the Magistrate under Section 77(1) of the old Act. But in so holding he lost sight of the fact that before presenting an application to the Magistrate, the rules framed under the old Act provided that the Municipal Council shall first present a bill to the non-applicant Assessee followed by a notice of demand and then only an application could be filed before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, in error in dismissing the application as untenable. The question then arises whether a reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was competent. The learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 2 contends, on the authority of Dargah Committee v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1962 SC 574 and Cantonment Board v. Pyarelal AIR 1966 SC 108 , that the Magistrate, while entertaining an application under Section 77(1) of the old Act, was acting as a persona designata and not as an inferior criminal Court within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that, therefore, a reference under section 438 of the Code was not competent. The question is of academic importance so far as this Court is concerned because, even if the Magistrate be a persona designata while acting under Section 77(1) of the old Act, he would be amenable to the jurisdication of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The question is of academic importance so far as this Court is concerned because, even if the Magistrate be a persona designata while acting under Section 77(1) of the old Act, he would be amenable to the jurisdication of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. We, therefore, under our powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, hereby set aside the impugned orders of the learned Magistrate and direct him to proceed to recover the octroi tax from the non-applicant No. 2 Assessee in each case in accordance with the provisions of the old Act. Counsel's fee Rs. 25 in each case, if certified. Application dismissed