Summarize the following court judgment. iminal Appeal No. 39 of 1955. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 28	 1954	 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 69 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and order dated November 23	 1953	 of the Sessions Judge	 Patna	 in Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1953 against the judgment and order dated August 27	 1953	 of the Munsif Magistrate of Patna Sadar. Murtaza Fazl Ali and R. C. Prasad	 for the appellant. section P. Varma	 for respondent No. 1. 1957. April 25. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J. The appellant was removed from his position as mutawalli of Gholam Yahia Waqf Estate on September 1	 1951	 by an order passed by the Majlis constituted under the Bihar Waqfs Act	 1947 (Bihar Act 8 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He appealed to the District Judge of Monghyr	 as he was entitled to do under the provisions of the Act	 and the operation of the order of removal passed by the Majlis was stayed by the District Judge pending the hearing of his appeal. A complaint against him was filed in the Court of the Sadar Sub Divisional Magistrate	 Patna	 on July 1	 1952	 by Mahommad Sual	 Nazir of the Majlis	 on the order of its Sadar. It was alleged in the complaint that it was the duty of the appellant ' to prepare a budget of the waqf estate of which he was a mutawalli	 under section 58(1) of the Act	 for the year 133 1034 1952 53 and to send a copy of it to the Majlis before January 15	 1952. The appellant had deliberately failed to comply with the aforesaid provisions and therefore had committed an offence punishable under section 65(1) of the Act. The office of the Majlis where the budget had to be filed was situated at Patna within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate in whose Court the complaint was filed. The appellant was subsequently tried at Patna by a Munsif Magistrate with First Class powers and convicted under section 65(1) of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100	 in default to undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment. He appealed to the Sessions Judge of Patna who dismissed his appeal. An application filed by the appellant in the Patna High Court in its criminal revisional jurisdiction was rejected. The appellant obtained special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court. It has been found as a fact that the appellant failed to prepare a budget of the estimated income and expenditure of the waqf estate and to send a copy of it to the Majlis before January 15	 1952. The only question for consideration is whether the appellant 's failure to comply with the provisions of section 58(1) of the Act makes him liable to be punished under section 65(1). At this stage	 it is necessary to set out the provisions of a. 58 of the Act which are as follows: " 58 (1) The mutawalli of every waqf shall	 before the fifteenth day of January in each year	 prepare a budget of the estimated income and expenditure of such waqf for the next succeeding financial year and shall forthwith send a copy thereof to the Majlis. (2)The Majlis may	 within six weeks from the date on which it receives such copy	 alter or modify the budget in such manner and to such extent as it thinks fit. (3)If the Majlis alters or modifies any budget under sub section (2)	 it	 shall forthwith send a copy of the budget as so altered or modified to the mutawalli of the waqf concerned	 and the budget as so altered or modified shall be deemed to be the budget of the waqf. (4)If within the period mentioned in subsection (2) and for two weeks thereafter the Majlis does 1035 not send to the mutawalli of the waqf concerned a copy of the budget altered or modified as aforesaid	 the Majlis shall be deemed to have approved the budget without any alteration or modification. (5)If the mutawalli fails to prepare and send a copy of the budget as required by sub section (1)	 the Majlis shall prepare a budget for the waqf concerned and such budget shall be deemed to be the budget of that waqf for the year in question. (6)Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to authorise the Majlis to alter or modify any budget in a manner or to an extent inconsistent with the wishes of the waqif	 so far as such wishes can be ascertained	 or the provisions of this Act. " Section 65 provides that a mutawalli may be punished if he fails to comply with certain matters mentioned therein including his failure to comply with sub section (1) of section 58. Sub section (1) of section 65 reads as follows: " 65 (1) If a mutawalli fails without reasonable cause	 the burden of proving which shall be upon him	 to comply with any order or direction made or issued under clauses (i)	 (o) or (q) of sub section (2) of section 27 or under section 56	 to comply with the provisions of sub section (1) of section 57	 sub section (1) of section 58	 section 59 or section 60	 or to furnish any statement	 annual account	 estimate	 explanation or other document or information relating to the waqf of which he is mutawalli	 which he is required or called upon to furnish under any of the other provisions of this Act	 he shall be punishable with fine which may extend	 in the case of the first offence	 to two hundred rupees and	 in the case of second or any subsequent offence	 to five hundred rupees. " It is clear from the provisions of section 58(1) that before January 15	 each year	 the mutawalli of each waqf shall prepare a budget for the next succeeding financial year and shall forthwith send a copy thereof to the Majlis. Under section 65 (1)	 if he fails to comply with the above	 he is liable to be punished with fine. It was contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that section 58 of the Act was an invalid provision because it gave unrestricted power to the Majlis to alter 1036 or modify the budget prepared by the mutawalli without a right of appeal against the action of the Majlis altering or modifying the budget. The provisions of section 58 imposed an unreasonable restriction on the mutawalli in carrying on his occupation as such. Accordingly	 the provisions of section 58 offended article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. The Act was enacted for the purpose of providing for the better administration of waqfs in the State of Bihar as its preamble states. Section 5 provides for the establishment of two bodies corporate known as Majlis to discharge respectively the functions assigned to them by the Act with reference to Sunni waqfs and Shia waqfs. Section 27 provides that the general superintendence of all waqfs in the State shall be vested in the Majlis	 which will do all things reasonable and necessary to ensure that waqfs are properly supervised and administered and that the income thereof is duly appropriated and applied to the objects of such waqfs and in accordance with the purposes for which such waqfs were founded or for which they exist so far as such objects and purposes can be ascertained. Sub section (2) of this section enumerates	 inter alia	. the various powers and duties of the Majlis including the removal of a mutawalli from his office under certain conditions. The various powers set out in this subsection clearly indicate that the mutawalli is subordinate to and under the control of the Majlis. The Majlis under section 47 may also make an application to the District Judge for an order	 amongst other things	 for the removal of the mutawalli. Chapter X deals with mutawallis and their duties and under section 56 it is specifically enjoined that every mutawalli shall carry out all directions which may from time to time be issued to him by the Majlis under any of the provisions of the Act. Previous to the passing of the Act	 the Mussalman Wakf Act (Central Act XLII of 1923) was enacted to make provisions for the better management of waqf property and for ensuring the keeping and publication of proper accounts in respect of such properties. It applied to all waqfs	 except those to which section 3 of the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act	 1037 1913	 applied. Reference to some of the provisions of the Mussalman Wakf Act may now be made. Section 3 provides for the furnishing of particulars relating to a waqf to the Court	 that is to say	 a District Judge or within the limits of ordinary original civil jurisdiction	 to such Court subordinate to the High Court as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette designate. Section 5 provides that within three months after the thirty first day of March next following the date on which the statement referred to in section 3 had been furnished	 and thereafter within three months of the thirty first day of March in every year	 the mutawalli shall prepare and furnish to the Court a full and true statement of accounts of all moneys received or expended by him on behalf of the waqf of which he was the mutawalli during the period of twelve months ending on such thirty first day of March. Section 10 provides for punishment for failure to comply with the provisions of section 3 or section 4 by a mutawalli	 who becomes liable to be fined a sum which may extend to five hundred rupees	 or	 in the case of a second or subsequent offence which may extend to two thousand rupees. It is clear that the purpose of the Act and that of the Mussalman Wakf Act was to ensure that the waqfs were properly administered and that the income of the waqf was duly appropriated for the purposes for which the waqf had been founded. Having regard to the fact that the mutawalli occupied the position of a manager or a custodian and that some kind of control or supervision over him by the Majlis with respect to due administration of the waqf property and due appropriation of funds was certainly necessary	 we are of the opinion that the provisions of section 58 of the Act are reasonable restrictions on the exercise of his duties as a mutawalli and it cannot be said that the provisions of section 58 offend any of the provisions of the Constitution. As was said in the case of The Commissioner	 Hindu Religious Endowments	 Madras vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt(1) a budget is indispensable in all public institutions and that it is not per se (1) ; 	 1037. 1038 unreasonable to provide for the budget of a religious institution being prepared under the supervision of the Commissioner or the Area Committee. Under section 58 of the Act	 the mutawalli has to prepare a budget and send a copy of it to the Majlis within a specified time and the Majlis	 which has the powers of supervision over him	 is authorized to alter or modify the budget. This power of alteration or modification is inherent in the power of supervision and such a provision in section 58 cannot be said to be unreasonable. Reliance	 however	 was placed on a passage in the judgment of this Court in the case cited above to the effect that if an Area Committee under cl. 3 of section 70 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act	 1951	 makes any addition or alteration in the budget	 an appeal against it lay to the Deputy Commissioner. The passage upon which reliance is placed is no authority for the proposition that the provisions of section 58 of the Act become unreasonable because there is no provision for an appeal against the orders of the Majlis. The powers of the Majlis to alter or modify the budget prepared by the mutawalli are not unrestricted. Sub section (6) of section 58 expressly provides that nothing contained in the section shall be deemed to authorize the Majlis to alter or modify any budget in a manner or to an extent inconsistent with the wishes of the waqif	 so far as such wishes can be ascertained	 or the provisions of the Act. In our opinion	 nothing contained in sub sections (2)	 (3) and (4) of section 58 amount to unreasonable restrictions on the exercise of the duties of the mutawalli as a person administering a waqf. Even if it were to be assumed that the said provisions amounted to an unreasonable restriction	 sub sections (2)	 (3) and (4) are clearly severable from sub sections (1)	 (5) and (6) of section 58. Even if sub sections (2)	 (3) and 4 were struck down	 the mutawalli would still be under a legal obligation under sub section (1) to prepare a budget and submit a copy thereof to the Majlis within a specified time and his failure to do so would make him liable to punishment under section 65(1). It was urged that the Sessions Judge erred in placing the onus on the appellant under section 65(1) to prove that he had submitted the copy of the budget within time. 1039 This objection	 however	 does not require a detailed consideration because the Sessions Judge clearly stated in his judgment that apart from the onus	 he was satisfied that the prosecution had fully established on the evidence that the appellant had failed to send a copy of the budget as required by law. It was also pointed out that section 65 does not provide for any imprisonment in default of payment of fine	 but the appellant was sentenced to 15 days simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Section 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with sections 40 and 67 of the Indian Penal Code appears to us to be a clear answer to this contention. It was also pointed out that under section 65 of the Act a sentence of fine extending upto five hundred rupees could be imposed for a second or for a subsequent offence. We need not	 however	 consider that matter in the present appeal as it was conceded on behalf of the appellant that the sentence of fine imposed upon him in the present case was for a first offence. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

The appellant failed to prepare a budget of the Waqf Estate of which he was the mutawalli	 for the year 1952 53 and send a copy of it to the Majlis before January 15	 1952	 as he was bound to do under section 58(1) of the Bihar Waqfs Act	 1947	 and was convicted by the 'Magistrate under section 65(1) of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100	 in default to undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment. It was contended for him that the conviction and sentence were not valid because (1) section 58 of the Act contravened article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India	 as it gave unrestricted power to the Majlis to alter or modify the budget prepared by the mutawalli without a right of appeal against the action of the Majlis and so imposed an unreasonable restriction on the mutawalli in carrying on his occupation as such	 and (2) section 65 Of the Act did not provide for any imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Held	 that having regard to the fact that a mutawalli occupies the position of a manager or custodian and the supervision over him by the Majlis with respect to due administration of the waqf property is necessary and that the powers of the Majlis to alter or modify the budget prepared by the mutawalli are controlled by sub section (6) Of section 58 of the Act	 the restrictions imposed by section 58 Of the Act on the exercise of his powers 1033 by a mutawalli are reasonable. Accordingly	 the provisions Of section 58 'of the Act do not offend article 19 (i) (g) of the Constitution. Commissioner	 Hindu Religious Endowments	 Madras vs Sri Lakshmindya Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt	 ; 	 relied on. The order of the Magistrate providing for imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not invalid in view Of section 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with sections 4o and 67 of the Indian Penal Code.