MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. SUBRAMANIA AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cr.R.C. Nos. 852 and 861 of 1927. - In these two petitions, the only question that needs consideration is whether there was a notification under Section 249(1) of the District Municipalities Act. The Lower Court has addressed itself to the question of the resolution of the Council. Evidently it was misled by the cross-examination on behalf of the accused. If there was a valid notification under Section 249(1) of the District Municipalities Act, the persons who carry on the trades mentioned in the notification would be bound to take out licenses. The notification that is now produced is dated 26 January, 1926, and Mr. Jayarama Aiyar contends that there was no resolution of the Council before that date authorising the publication of the notification. No doubt, in the evidence of the first witness he speaks of the first resolution of the Council of 2nd February, 1926. From that it cannot be inferred that there was no previous resolution. This is a question of fact which will have to be determined by the Trial Court. The trial of the Lower Court was incomplete and the Court did not address itself to the real question in dispute, namely, the publication of the notification as required by Section 249(1) of the District Municipalities Act. I set aside the orders of acquittal in both the cases and direct that the cases be retried. The accused will be entitled to raise any contention that is open to them.

(2.) Cr.R.C. Nos. 851 and 849 of 1927. - There is no question of law. Dismissed.

(3.) Cr.R.S. Nos. 850, 853, 854, 857, 858, 859, 860 and 862 of 1927. - There is no reason to interfere with an order of acquittal. The petitions are dismissed.