IMAM BAKSH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision from the order of the Additional Magistrate of Almora, dismissing the applicants appeal from their convictions by the Magistrate and sentences of fine imposed upon them. The applicants are butchers who used to keep stalls in the municipal market of Almora but ultimately left that market, shifted outside the municipal limits and opened meat stalls within a mile of the municipal limits. Under a notification published in the Government Gazette of 1st October 1932, the provisions of Section 245, Municipalities Act, were extended by the Commissioner, to whom the power had been delegated by the Local Government. In the notification the words actually used are that the limits of the board are extended, etc., but there is no doubt that what was intended was that the provisions of Section 245 were being made applicable to this extended area, inasmuch as that particular section was actually quoted in the notification.

(2.) The notice of this extension of the limits for purposes of Section 245 was given to all these persons, but they did not obtain any license for carrying on their business and slaughtered animals without bringing them to the municipal office to get them passed. Accordingly the Officiating Executive Officer made a complaint to the City Magistrate that these accused persons had infringed the municipal bye- laws already notified. Before the Magistrate as well as the appellate Court there was some dispute as to whether the limits to which the Act was made applicable were in excess of the maximum of one mile provided in Section 245(3). The lower appellate Court is satisfied that so far as the shops occupied by the accused are concerned they are well within one mile. It therefore seems wholly unnecessary to consider whether the appellate Court's finding that the entire limits are within one mile is based on any legal evidence. If the accused have been carrying on business at places within one mile of the limits of the Municipal Board, then the notification is applicable to these places, notwithstanding its inapplicability to certain other areas which may be beyond one mile. We see no force in this objection.

(3.) The trying Magistrate came to the conclusion that the business carried on by the accused was likely to be a nuisance, and therefore the bye-law framed by the Municipal Board under Section 298 would be applicable. No doubt he thought that to a certain extent the purpose of the board for imposing a license fee appeared to be to increase their revenue because owing to the transfer of the shops to the outskirts the income of the board from the meat market had been affected, and that the fact that the board Inspector did not compel the goats of those shops which were within the limits to be examined, clearly showed that the board was concerned more with their income rather than the health of the public. All the same he came to the conclusion that the bye-laws made by the board were perfectly valid and a breach of the bye-laws was an offence committed by, the accused. On appeal this view has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court.