Arunachala Chetty vs Emperor

Jackson, J.—The petitioner has been fined Rs. 50 u/s 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 4th 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 21st November 1928. The learned appellate Magistrate finds that this was only

permission to use the premises u/s 193 and not permission to install the machinery u/s 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 24th October 1928. It was that refusal which inspired the

mahazar on the same day, 24th October 1928, and obviously what the people wanted was the permission for what the accused had applied for,

and what the president had refused.

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

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.

Meanwhile accused was regularly paying license fees up to 31st March 1930. For the next period license was refused and accused was

prosecuted. He might possibly have been prosecuted u/s 193, but the Union Board Clerk, P. W. 1, states in terms that he was being prosecuted

u/s 194 and it is under that section that he has been convicted.

The learned Subdivisional Magistrate finds that the offence of installing machinery without a license is a continuing offence, but this view has no

justification. The very word install shows that inception and not user is contemplated: of Muthu Bala Chettiar v. Chairman, Madura Municipality

A.I.R.1927Mad.961 at p. 125 (of 51 Mad.):

Section 250 (194 in Local Boards Act) does not deal with the user of such places, but only with their inception.

Once a factory is installed, its user cannot be said to be a continuous installation. In these circumstances the conviction u/s 194 cannot be

upheld. Petitioner is acquitted, the fine is ordered to be refunded.