IMPERATOR Vs. TYEBALI CURIMJI BARODAWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The finding of the Magistrate is that the accused is one of the joint owners of the land in question on which about a hundred bullocks are kept, some in huts and some in the open, the bullocks being plied for hire; that the place is not licensed by the Municipal Commissioner under Section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Act. The accused was charged with using the place without having taken out a license. The defence was that the bullocks did not belong to the accused and that he did not keep them or use the place for keeping them; that the bullocks belonged to tenants who had hired different pieces of the ground and put up huts and were keeping the bullocks. The Magistrate finds that the accused knew ever since March 1910 that bullocks were kept on the land and allowed it, and actually contemplated building a bullock stable, and that such rent as was received for the land was taken by him.

(2.) The matter comes up on revision before us upon conviction of the accused on these facts.

(3.) It is contended for the petitioner that the bullocks are kept upon certain vacant ground forming part of a large area belonging to the accused, and that they are not actually kept upon the plots which are leased out to tenants.