VINAY SHETTY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions bearing Nos. 1244 of 2009 and 1245 of 2009 are already admitted and they are listed for final hearing. Rest of the petitions are for admissions. They are admitted and heard finally by consent.

(2.) THE issue involved in these petitions is common and is being decided by the common judgment and order. The issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the signboard indicating the name of business place does not amount to an advertisement and, therefore, the display of signboard will not amount to an offence within the meaning of Section 328A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act ("the said Act" for short) and will not be punishable u/s 471 of the said Act. The complaints in all the cases are very cryptic. There are no details of the alleged offence except one line allegation that the signboard of particular size is displayed outside the Bar. The name of the Bar in question is Deepa Bar.

(3.) THE petitioners are different because they are holding different position in the same Bar and they are prosecuted at different points of time. As already said, the issue involved is as to whether the display of illuminated signboard amounts to advertisement. The said issue had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICICI Bank and Anr. v. Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay and Ors., 2005 6 SCC 404. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations in respect of ATM signboards of the bank at para 20: