MUNICIPAL HEALTH OFFICER KOZHIKODE Vs. VELU CHEKKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the Special First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode in a Municipal prosecution against the respondent, accused, for failure to take out licence for conducting a restaurant under Sections 249 (1) and 313 (1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920).

(2.) The restaurant in question, it would appear had been actually conducted not by the accused but by his tenant Kumara Panicker. On notice issued by the Municipality to the latter requiring him to take out a licence by paying a licence fee of Rs. 45/- he pleaded that the amount demanded was too high. The licence fee was then reduced to Rs. 30 but without paying even that amount and getting the licence, be closed down his business and also made himself scarce. It was thereupon that the accused landlord was sought to be proceeded against. The accused raised the defence that he was not liable for the failure of the occupier Kumara Panicker to take out licence. The Court below found that the reasons which motivated the prosecution, viz., the non-availability of Kumara Panicker was not established and accordingly acquitted the accused. Mr. Govinda Menon appearing for the appellant urges that the Courts below should have entered conviction against the accused as owner of the place apart from any question as to the availability or the occupant Kumara Panicker.

(3.) Now Section 249, Sub-section (1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act provides for the requirement of a licence in respect of the use of places for purposes specified in Schedule V, Clause (j) of which includes 'restaurant'. Subsection (2) then says :