In Re: V. Sundaram Aiyar

Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.—Though it was urged by the learned Crown Prosecutor that there was nothing to show that the license held by,

the accused covered the lino-type machine also, I think we must proceed on the footing that the license was granted to him u/s 288 of the Madras

City Municipals Act for installing and working such a machine, among other machines, in connection with the printing press he has been running.

Not only did he say in his statement that the working of the lino-type machine had been licensed by the Municipality, but the Magistrate who

convicted the accused proceeds on the basis that this allegation is correct.

If this be so, I am clearly of the opinion that the license must be held to cover also melting of the lead or the casting of types involved in the

process of working the machine. Schedule VI cannot be literally read as applying to every case where lead is melted; for then, the storing, however

small, of garlic, ghee and grass in a house might require a municipal license. Apart altogether from the question whether melting of lead of the kind

involved in the present case did justify the insistence of a license, I think that the prosecution could be met by the short answer that, where the

installation of the machine has been licensed, every process involved in the working of the machine must be deemed to have been licensed, unless

there is something in the Act or in the rules justifying the demand of separate licenses. I am not able to find any provision warranting such a view

being taken of the rights of the Municipality.

I could not however be understood as laying down the law generally and for all cases. Where the melting of lead even for lino-type machines is

done on a huge commercial scale, the Municipal Council may be able to insist on a license. Where the machinery is not covered by a license

already issued, probably they could ask for a license fee, not merely for authorising the installation of the machine but also for permitting the

particular process of lead melting. But on the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the conviction is not warranted. It is set aside and the fine, if

paid, will be refunded.