DAULAT SINGH Vs. EMPEROR, THROUGH MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur in a case under Section 299, U.P. Municipalities Act. One Daulat Singh was prosecuted for an offence under that Section upon a complaint made by the Municipal Board of Roorkee and was convicted by the trying Magistrate in a summary trial. He went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur and it was contended on his behalf that upon the admitted facts of the case his conviction under Section 299, Municipalities Act, was illegal. This contention has been accepted by the learned Judge and he has accordingly made this reference with the recommendation that the conviction should be set aside. Under Section 298, U.P. Municipalities Act, every Municipal Board is empowered to make bye-laws consistent with the Act and with any rules framed under the Act for the purpose of promoting or maintaining the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the Municipality. There is a list of model bye-laws framed by the Government which it is open to any Municipal Board to adopt for its own purposes. In list A appended to Section 298 there is a section "G" headed "Offensive trades." This Section provides for the granting of a license by the Municipal Board "for storing hay, straw, thatching grass, wood, coal or other dangerously inflammable material." It appears that the Municipal Board of Roorkee has exercised its power under Section 298 of the Act and has made a bye-law which runs as follows: No person shall use any place within the municipal limits for storing hay, straw, thatching-grass, wood, coal or dangerously inflammable materials unless a license has been granted for the same.

(2.) Section 299(1), U.P. Municipalities Act, confers upon every Municipal Board the power to prescribe a penalty for a breach of any bye-law framed by it. In the exercise of that power the Roorkee Municipal Board has prescribed that a breach of any of the provisions of these bye-laws shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to Rs. 100 and in the event of a continuing breach with a further fine which may extend to Rs. 5 for every day after the date of the first conviction during which the offender is proved to have persisted in the offence.

(3.) Now the prosecution of Daulat Singh was based upon the allegation that he was keeping a shop in which he had stored timber without having taken a license from the Municipal Board as he was required to do in accordance with the bye-law referred to above. When he was put on his trial he made the following statement: I used to have a license. I have now applied but the Municipal Board has refused to give me a license. The wood is lying there for sale as building material.