VRAJLAL MANILAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also dispose of Criminal Revision No. 3 of 1959.

(2.) THE Petitioner then filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the demand made on it for taking out a licence in respect of the branch as also the legality of the prosecution initiated by the Collector. In that petition the prayer of the applicant is that a suitable direction restraining the opponents from proceeding with the Petitioner's prosecution for a contravention of Section 3 of the Act be issued. The other petition is a reference under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by the Magistrate II Class, Damoh, who is trying the accused persons under Section 3 read with Section 13 of the Act. The learned Magistrate has stated the following questions for the decision of this Court:

(3.) IN the present case the trial Magistrate has found from the evidence adduced before him that no tobacco is sold at the Damoh branch, that at this establishment bidis are manufactured out of the tobacco received from the Petitioners' Sagar shop, and that the finished bidis are then sent out of Damoh for sale. Thus, the Damoh establishment is nothing but a depot where tobacco is received from the applicants' Sagar office and from where bidis made by the Sattedar out of that tobacco and delivered there are sent out for distribution. The establishment is not a shop or a stall where the Petitioner sells, wholesale or retail, or exposes or keeps for sale any tobacco Company That being so, the Petitioner is clearly not required to take out a separate licence in respect of the Damoh branch nor liable to pay any licence fee in regard to it. In this view of the matter it is wholly unnecessary to consider the other questions touching on the vires of the Act.