MAM CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAM Chand, the applicant in this criminal revision, was convicted by a first class Magistrate of Saharanpur for an offence under Section 299 of the Municipalities Act and was fined Rs. 200. In appeal the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge of Saharanpur altered the conviction into one under bye -law 11 of the bye -laws framed by the Saharanpur Municipal Board for the Regulation and Control of Power Driven Kolhus but maintained the fine.

(2.) THE applicant is the proprietor of the Lakshmi Oil Mill and has set up a power driven oil -crusher in the premises of the mill. According to the prosecution, he has thereby infringed bye -law No. 6, which runs as follows:

(3.) THE first argument advanced on behalf of the applicant is that the word "premises" used in the bye law in question means only the particular room or enclosure in which the oil crusher is installed and does not include other parts of the building outside that particular room or enclosure. In the present instance the oil -crusher has been fitted up in an inner room which is surrounded by either rooms also belonging to the applicant; and it is argued that as these "premises" in which the oil crusher stands do not adjoin any premises other than those occupied by the owner or the manager of the mill there was no necessity to obtain any one's consent for the installation of the machine. I am not prepared, however, to accept this restricted interpretation of the word "premises" in the context in which it is used here the word obviously suggests something wider and more comprehensive than a there single room or enclosure and would normally be interpreted as referring to the entire building occupied by the accused applicant's oil mill. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines "premises" (in the sense with which we are concerned) as "a house or building with its grounds or other appurtenances"; and there can be no justification for restricting the meaning of the word in the manner suggested by the applicant.