JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.:- The petitioner has impugned the action of respondent no.1 – Notified Area Committee, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NAC’) in penalising it to the tune of Rs. 1,27,752.87 paise for non-payment of octroi duty in the purported exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 78 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Undisputed facts are that on 16.03.1990, a truck bearing Registration No. PAT-5522 loaded with certain goods (television components) on which octroi duty was leviable was found within the area of NAC. The stand of the petitioner is that the driver – Amrik Singh had brought the truck within the limits of NAC. The driver contacted the employee at the Octroi Post on duty and requested him that since he was having no money, he may be allowed to go to the factory and call the Manager of the factory for getting money. The employee of the Octroi Post agreed to allow him to go to the factory and kept with him ORs Invoices and Challans. Since the factory was at a distance, therefore, the employee of the Octroi Post acceded to the request of the driver. The driver came along with truck at the gate of the factory. When the Manager of the factory was talking to the driver the staff of Octori Department headed by Mr. Gulati, Octroi Inspector reached the spot and took the truck into custody. Since, the valuation of the goods was Rs.2,95,108.17 paise, the octroi fee at the rate of 3% came out to be Rs.8853.25 paise. The petitioner was ready to pay the octroi fee, but the Octroi Inspector had imposed a heavy penalty @ 20 times of the value which is under dispute. 3. In nutshell, it can be said that the truck and the goods were seized by the NAC staff and above noted demand of Rs. 1,85,918.25 paise was raised. The claim of the petitioner is that Section 78 of the Act does not give any jurisdiction to the NAC or any of its officers to impose penalty by themselves. All that can be done by the NAC in such a case is to launch a prosecution against the erring person who has tried to evade the payment of octroi duty. 4. All that can be done by the NAC in such a case is to launch a prosecution against the erring person who has tried to evade the payment of octroi duty. 4. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 – NAC challenging the maintainability of the writ petition and jurisdiction of the Court. It is further submitted that there is an alternative remedy available under the provisions of the Act. It is the stand of the respondent- NAC that the truck was running away and did not stop at the Octroi Post. The sole object of running away from the Octroi Post was to evade octroi. On oral request of the person incharge of the truck the offence was compounded under Section 78 of the Act by imposing a composition fee/penalty which is permissible under law. The Secretary of the NAC, under Section 229 of the Act, is entitled to compound and he was specifically authorised vide resolution No. 4.6 dated 15.05.1984 by the NAC to compound on imposition of composition fee/penalty. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that NAC in fact has imposed a fine under Section 78 of the Act @ 20 times of the value of the octroi payable on the seized goods. NAC did not possess the said power and it is the criminal court alone which could impose a fine. In support of this averment, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments of this Court in Jatinder Kumar Bhag vs. State of Punjab, 2000(2) RCR (Civil) 534, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana vs. The Commissioner of Patiala Division, Patiala, 1995(2) RRR, 110, Gian Chand vs. The State, Vol.LX-1958, PLR 539 and Nitco Roadways Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. The Municipal Corporation Ludhiana and another, PLR 1985, 448. 6. No one appeared on behalf of respondent no.1 to rebut the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the averments made in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent no.1, the NAC has power to impose composition fee under Section 229 of the Act which power has been conferred by the Act. On the seized goods, octroi is leviable. The truck carrying the goods in question entered into the limits of NAC without payment of octroi and so the provisions of Section 78 read with Section 229 of the Act will apply. On the seized goods, octroi is leviable. The truck carrying the goods in question entered into the limits of NAC without payment of octroi and so the provisions of Section 78 read with Section 229 of the Act will apply. So, the petitioner is liable to pay the composition fee along with octroi. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the record. 8. Before I deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the stand of respondent no.1 in the written statement, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Sections 78 and 229 of the Act which reads as under:- “78. If (animals or articles) passing the octroi (or terminal tax) boundary of a municipality are liable to the payment of octroi (or terminal tax) then every person who, with the intention to defraud the committee or a lessee under section 83, causes or abets the introduction of, or himself introduces or attempts to introduce within the said octroi (or terminal tax) boundary, any such (animals or articles) upon which payment of the octroi (or terminal tax) due on such introduction has neither been made nor tendered, shall be punishable with fine which may extend either to twenty times the value of such octroi (or terminal tax) or to fifty rupees, whichever may be greater. 229. (1) The Committee or with the authorization of the committee its President, Vice-President (Executive Officer) (Medical Officer of Health) or Secretary, or any subcommittee thereof, may accept from any person against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed an offence against this Act or any rule or bye-law, a sum of money by way of composition for such offence.” 9. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that any person who brings articles within the Municipal limits without payment of octroi, any goods on which octroi is chargeable is liable to be punished with fine which may extend to twenty times the value of the octroi payable on the same. Here is the case wherein the octroi payable on the articles was Rs. 8853.25 paise and by adding 20 times penalty, it comes out to Rs. 1,85,918.25 paise . Here is the case wherein the octroi payable on the articles was Rs. 8853.25 paise and by adding 20 times penalty, it comes out to Rs. 1,85,918.25 paise . If NAC wants to prosecute the petitioner for having taken within the limits of NAC the goods without payment of octroi which was payable thereon, it is open to it to lodge a criminal complaint in a competent court which alone has the power to punish the petitioner for violation of the Act. If thereafter the petitioner would have been found guilty of the offence then the fine could have been imposed. Thus, the power of imposing fine / penalty vests only in criminal court and this power cannot be assumed by the NAC or by any of its officers. Only the composition fee is payable with the consent of the parties. The plea of the NAC that on oral request, the offence was compounded by levying the composition fee has been controverted. Thus, it apparently appears that there was no compounding between the parties. It is unilateral act on the part of the NAC. In other words, there was no offer to compound the offence. Thus, the question of imposition of composition fee as stated in the written statement does not arise. 10. After taking into consideration above, I am of the considered view that so far as the question of payment of octroi duty is concerned, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to seek his alternative remedy of appeal. The petitioner may if so advised, file appeal before the competent authority within a period of 30 days from today. If the appeal is filed within the aforesaid period then the issue of limitation will not come into the way and the appeal will be decided on merit. 11. So far as the issue with regard to penalty is concerned, I am satisfied that in the light of judgments in Gian Chand’s case (supra), Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana’s case (supra) and Nitco Roadways Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra) the NAC or its officers have no jurisdiction of their own to penalise a person who has been found to have evaded payment of octroi duty. Thus, in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, which fully applies to the facts of this case, I hold that to penalise a person for non payment of octroi duty, NAC has to prove its case as per the provisions of the Act in a Court of competent jurisdiction. 12. In the light of the above, the action of respondent no.1 – NAC in levying penalty or fine upon the petitioner or the driver of the truck in question is quashed. It is further made clear that passing of this order does not debar the NAC from taking any other appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. The bank guarantee or surety, if any, furnished by the petitioner in terms of order dated 03.07.1991 of this Court stands released. 13. No order as to costs. 14. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. ---------0.B.S.0------------