THOMAS A NINAN Vs. KRISHNA PILLAI KARTHIKEYAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Executive Authority of the Chengannur Panchayat has filed this appeal against the order of the Second Class Magistrate of chengannur acquitting the accused who had been prosecuted for contravention of bye-law 79 [b] of the Chengannur Panchayat. It is admitted in this case that the accused is conducting a printing press by name M. S. Press in his house No. 375 in ward No. 4 of the Panchayat from 1-4-61 and that he has not taken out a licence. According to him under the Panchayats Act and rules no licence is necessary for running a press.

(2.) S. 80 of the Panchayats Act - Act 2 of 1950 -authorises a Panchayat with the previous approval of the Director to notify that no place within the limits of the Panchayat area shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the rules made in this behalf being purposes which in the opinion of Government are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property without a licence from the executive authority. It is also provided that such a notification shall not take effect unless 60 days have elapsed from the date of the publication. In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 56 (c), 80 and 97 of the Act the Government in notification No. LA. 8. 13305/56/l & LAD dated 3-1-1958 have made rules, the same having been previously published as required by sub-S. (2) of S. 98 of the said Act. R. says: "for purposes of S. 80 of the Travancore-Cochin panchayats Act, 1950 the purposes specified in column (2) of the Schedule below shall be the purposes which in the opinion of the Government are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property, and the rates specified in column (2) shall be the maximum rate of licence fee which any panchayat may impose. "

(3.) IN the light of the principles laid down in these decisions there can be no doubt that working a printing press would certainly come within the meaning of the term'industry' and as such licence was necessary for conducting the printing press. The view taken by the Magistrate that working a printing press cannot be taken to be an industrial activity and does not require a licence is, therefore, clearly wrong and the order of acquittal based on that wrong view cannot stand. The order of acquittal is, therefore, set aside. The accused is found guilty under bye-law 8 of the bye-laws framed by the Panchayat for failure to take out a licence and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. Time for payment of fine two weeks from this date.