LAWS(BOM)-1960-3-19

ISMAILBHAI HAJI BAPHUBHAI NADIADWALA Vs. STATE

Decided On March 11, 1960
Ismailbhai Haji Baphubhai Nadiadwala Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revisional Application and the others raise a question of construction of Section 394(1)(c)(iv) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The petitioners are owners of stables in Malad. This area was outside the limits of the Bombay Municipal Corporation and since their construction the stables are used as stables for milch cattle. After the area was brought within the limits of the Greater Bombay, the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act became applicable. It appears the area was brought under the administration of the Municipal Corporation on February 1, 1957. Notices were served on the petitioners between July 2, 1958, to July 17, 1958, to carry out certain requirements, about 16 in number. It was said that In view of the fact that you are carrying on the trade at the place prior to the merger of the Malad District Municipality a licence up to March 31, 1958 will be granted to you on your paying the scheduled fees to the Assistant Superintendent of Licences (Suburbs). Your licence for the year 1958 -59 will be renewed only on your carrying out the accompanying requirements, Nos. 5, 12 and 14 within 6 months and the remaining requirements within 30 days from the receipt hereof. It appears that the petitioners gave notice to the tenants owning the milch cattle. Since no licence was obtained, a complaint was filed against the petitioners before the Presidency Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivli, Bombay, under Section 394(7)(c)(iv) read with Section 471 of the Act. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 394(7)(c)(iv) read with Section 471 of the Act. It is against this judgment that the petitioners have come to this Court in revision.

(2.) IN this case we are not concerned with the requirements to be carried out by the petitioners, since they are prosecuted and convicted for not obtaining the licence.

(3.) SECTION 394(c) so far as relevant reads as follows:.no person shall keep or allow to be kept, in or upon any premises, horses, cattle or other four -footed animals - (i) for sale, (ii) for letting out on hire, (iii) ...or (iv) for sale of any produce thereof. It is an admitted position that the tenants are selling the milk of these animals and hence the fourth condition is satisfied.