THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. T. KRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in C.C. 1 of 1956 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate, Tanjore.

(2.) THE respondent was prosecuted according to the charge -sheet for offences under Section 250 read with Section 313 of the District Municipalities Act. The respondent by an application, Exhibit P -1, dated 12th May, 1955, applied to the Municipality for the installation of an automatic Heidelberg Printing Machine operated by electrical power of two H.P. to be attached to the already existing Printing Press Machine. By Exhibit P -2 dated 25th May, 1955 the Commissioner informed him that the application is under scrutiny and consideration, and therefore the respondent should not commence the work till permission is granted for the same. No final order either rejecting or granting permission was passed. But the Municipal Council by its resolution dated 7th January, 1956, recommended to the Government for granting exemption as the Government in their memorandum No. 46697 of 1952 I.T. Health dated 14th October, 1952 had instructed that even small H.P. electric motor should not be permitted in residential areas. What orders have been passed on the recommendation are not disclosed by the evidence in the case. In these circumstances on inspection by one of the officers of the Municipality it was discovered that this respondent was working the machine. Then the prosecution was launched against the respondent under Section 250(1)(b) and Section 313. Section 250(1)(b) is in the following terms

(3.) IN this case the Commissioner by his letter dated 25th May, 1955 directed the respondent not to commence the work till the licence is granted. This is certainly not an order of refusal within the meaning of Section 250(3)(b), as under that section it is the Municipal Council who should refuse or grant the permission. An interim order passed by the Commissioner to the effect mentioned above cannot be construed as an order passed by the Municipal Council. At any rate there is no evidence that the Municipal Council met and passed a resolution to the effect that applicant should not install the machine till the permission is granted. There is, therefore, no refusal by the Municipal Council as required by Section 250(3)(b) In the absence of such a refusal the provisions of Clause (11) of Section 321 will apply. This is a case in which the permission that is asked for is not an yearly one as this is a question of installing machinery, which does not require an yearly or annual licence. It is only for the use of it that such a permission or licence annually may be necessary. Therefore under Section 321 Clause (11) the permission must be deemed to have been granted for the installation of the machine. If it is deemed to have been granted, there can be no offence under Section 250(1)(b) read with Section 313(c). No offence has, therefore, been made out, and the acquittal is, therefore, justifiable on this ground The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.