ADMINISTRATOR, HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY, COMPLAINANT Vs. ABAL GOWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by special leave on behalf of the Administrator, Howrah Municipality, directed against an order of Sri A. K. Roy, Magistrate, First Class, Howrah, dated the 28th September 1956, whereby the respondent was acquitted of an offence under Section 386(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, as extended to Howrah.

(2.) ON the complaint of the Municipality, the respondent was put on trial for using certain premises for keeping cattle for sale without a licence. The defence was that the Municipality was not entitled to refuse a licence under Section 386(1) of the Act when it had already granted licences to the respondent under Sections 175 and 179 of the Act. Some evidence was tendered by the Municipality, but no witnesses were called by the respondent, and the learned trying Magistrate acquitted him of the offence charged. The Municipality has appealed.

(3.) MR . Roy, appearing on behalf of the Municipality, has argued that the order of acquittal is based on a complete misconception of the law. The learned Magistrate seems to have thought it curious that the respondent should be prosecuted under Section 386(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, when as a matter of fact, the Municipality has already accepted license fees on account of trade, profession and calling and on account of scavenging tax. The Magistrate further seems to have doubted if the Municipality was not improperly withholding a health licence under Section 386(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, for reasons best known to itself. He held in the end that the Municipality had been ill -advised to start a prosecution in the present case, and in that view of the matter made an order acquitting the respondent which is now under challenge.