A C SAHA AND CO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision of an order of the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, dated the 10th of April, 1956, convicting the firm A.C. Saha described as A. C. Saha and Co. under section 218 read with section 541 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and sentencing it to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00. The case for the prosecution is that the firm which carries on the business of advertising agency at 48C, Durga Charan Dr. Road had been assessed by the Corporation of Calcutta to pay a license fee of Rs. 72/- for the year 1952-53 and had failed to pay the sum in spite of repeated demands. Evidence was led by the Corporation to show that the firm carried on the business without payment of license fee for the year in question and several letters were produced and proved at the trial which purported to show that the firm did carry on the business of advertising agency.

(2.) The petitioner's case was that it did not carry on the business of advertising agency, but it was merely an order supplier and as such liable to he assessed to Rs. 6/- only under item No. 140 of schedule IV of the Act. The learned Magistrate negatived the defence plea and held that the petitioner was a firm carrying on the business of advertising agency and as such liable to pay a fee of Rs. 72/-under item No. 68 of schedule IV of the Act, The petitioner thereafter applied to this Court and obtained the present Rule.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner several, points have been made. It is said that there was a bona fide dispute as respects the liability to pay the enhanced license fee of Rs. 72/- and that a representation had been made under the provisions of the Act which was pending before the Corporation when the presecution was started; that although the petitioner had been prosecuted for non-payment of increased licensed fee for two previous years the firm was acquitted and yet the present prosecution was started on similar facts; that the circumstances proved in the case do net establish that the petitioner carried on the business of advertising agency properly so-called and could not, therefore, be assessed to pay a license fee of Rs. 72/-under item 68 of Schedule IV; that the evidence in the proceedings was heard by one Magistrate and the petitioner firm was convicted by another and lastly, the present proceedings were barred by reason of the provisions of Sec. 582 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.