PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. CHAKALA CHENNA CHITAMBARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against the order of the Additional Second Class Magistrate of Anantapur acquitting the accused. The charge against the accused "was that he failed to take out a licence daring 1948-49 for keeping soiled clothes for washing and washed clothes without obtaining a licence under the Madras District Municipalities Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 249 read with Section 313 (a) of the Act. Section 249 (1) reads as follows:

(2.) The State has preferred an appeal against this order on the ground that the construction placed upon Schedule V (a) by the trial Court is not correct. I do not think the order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate is wrong. A plain reading of the clause shows that to bring it under Clause (a) of Sch. V it is necessary that washing also should take place within the municipal limits. The gist of the offence consists in washing soiled clothes and keeping them for the purpose of washing them without obtaining the requisite licence. It is not an offence merely to keep soiled clothes for the purpose of washing. If this construction is to be accepted every one that keeps soiled clothes for the purpose of washing them can be said to have committed an offence under Section 249.

(3.) I think the reasonable construction is that it is only a person who washes the soiled clothes and keeps soiled clothes for the purpose of washing within the municipal limits without taking out a licence that can be said to have committed offence. In these circumstances I hold that the construction placed by the Magistrate is correct and is not liable to be revised. I do not therefore accept the appeal and the order of the lower Court is confirmed.