LAWS(BOM)-1971-2-16

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JAIKAR KRISHNA SHETTY

Decided On February 13, 1971
STATE Appellant
V/S
JAIKAR KRISHNA SHETTY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in this case was the Manager of an eating house and according to the prosecution, he had committed breach of certain conditions of the licence. The breach was noticed by the Inspector on 5th November 1968. The Inspector, therefore, filed his complaint in the lower Court on 14th November 1968. The Inspector, therefore, filed his complaint in the lower Court on 14th November 1968, alleging that the respondent had committed a breach of the conditions Nos. 8, 21, 26 (1) (2) (3) (4), 28 (general) and Nos. 3, 7, 8, 14, 18 and 27 (special ) of eating house licence No. 9706 of 1968-69. He, therefore, contended that the respondent had committed an offence publishable under Section 471 read with Section 394 (1) (e) (I) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. It appears from the record that there were other two accused persons against whom also this complaint was filed. But the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Chitnis appearing on behalf of the appellant-State has informed me that they were not proceeded against and only the present respondent was tried in the lower court.

(2.) THE respondent denied to have committed any offence. The learned Magistrate, however, was of the view that the charge under Section 394 (1) (e) (I) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act could not be sustained as the respondent had a licence in respect of the shop. he also observed that the infringement of any condition could not mean that there was no licence. He therefore, acquitted the respondent. Against this order of acquittal, the State has come in appeal.

(3.) THE first point that is urged before me is whether the present case of carrying on trade in breach of any terms or conditions of a licence is covered by Section 394 (1) (e) (I) read with Section 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, and secondly whether on merits there is evidence to show that the respondent has committed the offence alleged against him. I first propose to discuss the second point.