ARUNACHALA CHETTY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been fined Rs. 50 under Section 194, Madras Local Boards Act 1920 for installing machinery without a license. He applied for license on 4th September 1928 and his application never came before the Union Board, so by provision of Sub-clause 4 in the 1920 Act he would be deemed to have obtained permission by 4 December 1928. A mahazar was sent to the Board asking it to grant him permission to "begin machine work" and this was permitted by the Board on 21 November 1928. The learned appellate Magistrate finds that this was only permission to use the premises under Section 193 and not permission to install the machinery under Section 194. This is to press the case against an accused. He had applied for leave to install, and leave to install was what the president refused on 24 October 1928. It was that refusal which inspired the mahazar on the same day, 24 October 1928, and obviously what the people wanted was the permission for what the accused had applied for, and what the president had refused.

(2.) There can be no doubt that at least by December 1928 accused had permission to install the machinery.

(3.) The permission was not cancelled till the following August by which time apparently the machinery was installed; at any rate there is no evidence to the contrary.