STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BHAISHANKAR UTTAMRAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an acquittal and it raises a short but interesting question under the Bombay Harijan (Removal of Social Disabilities) Act, 1946, viz. the question of construction of Section 2, Clause (1), which defines 'shop'. The definition of 'shop' is preceded by the definition of 'place of public entertainment' which is contained in Section 2, Clause (e). 'Place of public entertainment' is defined as meaning: "any place, whether enclosed or open, to which the public are admitted, and where any kind of food or drink is supplied for consumption on the premises for the profit or gain of any person owing or having an interest in or managing such place; and includes a refreshment-room, eating house coffee-house, boarding-house, lodging house and hotel". Shop, is defined as meaning : "any premises where goods are sold either by retail or wholesale or both and includes a laundry, a hair cutting saloon or such other place whore services are rendered to customers." Now, the question whether the particular premises are a 'shop' under the Act depends upon the construction of the words 'goods' and 'sold' in the above-mentioned definition of 'shop'. Does the word 'goods' include any kind of food or drink supplied for consumption on the premises or is it referable only to an article supplied otherwise than for consumption on the premises? Does the word 'sold' connote that a person who pays the price for an article and takes delivery thereof must take away the article with himself and leave the premises with it or does it also connote that a person who purchases an article, say an article of food or drink may consume it on the premises? upon the answers to these questions depends the decision of this appeal.

(2.) The learned trial Magistrate took the view that the 'goods' referred to in the definition of 'shop' in Section 2, Clause (f) were inclusive of any kind of food or drink supplied for consumption on the premises and that the principal work done by the canteen was "the sale of the food stuffs in retail to its customers". On the other hand, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal from the learned Magistrate's judgment, took a contrary view and held that 'goods' in Section 2, Clause (f) did not include any kind of food or drink supplied for consumption on the premises. He observed that the "food supplied for consumption on the premises of a place must be excluded from the 'goods' and to that extent the word 'goods' must be given a limited meaning." AS me learned Judge held that the articles of food or drink supplied in the canteen for consumption on the premises were not 'goods' under the Act, the supply thereof did not amount to sale of goods, within the meaning of Section 2 Clause (f).

(3.) The question as to the construction of the expression 'shop has arisen in this case in this way. The respondents --Bhaishankar Uttamrai and Bhika Punja are the canteen manager and the canteen boy respectively of the Anant Mills in Ahmedabad. They were accused 2 and accused 3 in the case which was tried by the learned Magistrate. Accused 1 who was tried but acquitted by the learned Magistrate is the General Manager of the Anant Mills. The complainant Uka Pancha, a Harijan Mill-hand, is an employee in these Mills. Now, the prosecution case is that, although the Harijans are allowed to sit wherever they like in the canteen of these Mills, they are served only by a Harijan boy who is not permitted to serve other Hindus. Harijans are not permitted to avail themselves of the services rendered by the non-Harijan bearers. On 15-9-1954, at 9 p.m. Uka Pancha went to the canteen and took water from a glass which was set apart for the other Hindus. Thereupon the respondent Bhika Punja, who was a canteen boy, abused Uka Pancha and asked him why he drank water from a glass set apart for the other Hindus. Uka asked for forgiveness and called for tea. Tea was served to him by a Harijan boy in a cup and saucer which were set apart for the Harijans only. Uka took tea and left the canteen. On the next day, at 2-30 p. m. Uka was going to the mills. The respondent Bhika Punja was standing near the gate of the mills. He saw Uka and pointed him out to his friends. Bhika and his friends assaulted Uka and the prosecution contention is that Uka was assaulted because on the previous day he had taken water from a glass which was set apart for the other Hindus. Uka reported the incident of the assault upon him to a Majoor Mahajan representatives of the mills and filed a complaint. His complaint was that a discrimination was made against Harijans in the canteen of the Mills, and the discrimination alleged was that the Harijans were not permitted to take service from the canteen boys who were not Harijans, but were required to be served by a Harijan boy only, that the Harijans were not allowed to use utensils which were set apart for the other Hindus and the Harijan canteen boy was not allowed to serve the non-Harijan Hindus. It was conceded that no discrimination was made between Harijans and other Hindus in the matter of the quality of food or the quality of utensils. The prosecution contention is that the abovementioned disabilities imposed in the canteen against the Harijans in the matter of service and setting apart of utensils offend against the provisions of the Bombay Harijan (Removal of Social Disabilities) Act 1946 and the charge against the respondents is that they had committed an offence under Section 7(b) read with Section 4 of the Act by practising discrimination against the Harijans.