RAMCHAND, APPLICANT Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application by Ram Chand, who was convicted by a First Class Magistrate under S. 161, Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation, and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50. According to the prosecution, the accused was working a bakery in Edward Memorial building without obtaining the necessary licence from the Municipality. The accused was prosecuted on three counts. The accused admitted that he was running a bakery, and had not succeeded in obtaining a licence. He pleaded that no license was necessary. The learned Magistrate held that a licence was necessary. The accused was, therefore, convicted under S. 161 (1) (e), Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation. Ram Chand filed a revision, which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Ramchand has now come to this Court in revision.

(2.) It is common ground that the accused had a bakery in Edward Memorial building and he had no licence for the bakery on the material dates. The question, for decision is whether the accused is guilty in working a bakery without a licence.

(3.) The prosecution put forward two alternatives before the trial Court. There was reference to bakery bye-laws, and also to S. 161, Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation. The learned Magistrate did not express himself in clear terms whether the accused is guilty under the bakery bye-laws. At one place in the judgment the learned Magistrate remarked that he agreed with the contention of the defence that, these rules provide only for inspection and proper regulation of bakeries, and punishment for a breach of the bye-laws. At the end of the judgment the learned Magistrate wrote that he did not propose to convict the accused for the breach of the bye-laws, as the fine imposed under S. 161 was adequate. At one place in the judgment the learned Magistrate wrote that the prosecution had not been sent up for breach of any of these by-laws. This observation is not correct. Three separate complaints were filed to cover the three charges, Bakery bye-laws were mentioned in each of these three complaints. It is therefore, obvious that originally the prosecution contemplated action under the bakery bye-laws.