EMPEROR Vs. RAMRAO VISHVANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard an interesting argument in this appeal. The question involved in the appeal is narrow, and the facts are few and undisputed.

(2.) Under Section 305 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act (Bom. Act III of 1888) several house-owners in the first and second cross Hanuman lanes were required by the Municipal Commissioner to level, metal, drain and light the two streets in the manner described in the written notices. The house-owners refused to carry out the work which they were required to do under the notices with the result that they were prosecuted under the Municipal Act.

(3.) The learned Presidency Magistrate came to the conclusion that the two cross lanes were not private streets, but public streets within the meaning of the Act, and on that footing acquitted the accused. The present appeal is preferred by the Government of Bombay, and the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is impugned before us.