AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 354 wordsBellie, J.—This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused who has been convicted under S. 287 of the Ma dras City Municipal Corporation Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.
The case against the revision petitioner accused is that for the year 1987-88, without obtaining a licence from the Corporation, the accused was running a bakery and therefore he is liable to be convicted and punished under the said section. The accused denied the offence.
The Court below accepted the case of the Corporation which filed the complaint and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.
I find no justification for interfering with the said order of the lower Court. It is not in dispute that during the relevant period i.e., 1987-88 the accused was running a bakery. It is also not in dispute that no licence has been issued in that respect. The case of the accused appears to be that he has sent the licence fee on 11.2.1987 itself but he has not received any order either granting the licence or rejecting it, and therefore, it cannot be said that he has committed any offence. According to the Corporation a rejection order was passed on 31.7.1987 and that has been communicated to the accused.
Whatever it may be, whether his application has been rejected or not, only after obtaining licence the accused could have his business. As the lower court rightly stated if the Corporation was not taking any action on his application for renewal though he has paid the fee therefore, it is for the accused to take appropriate proceedings either to get the licence expeditiously or to get back the fees or part of it as allowed by law otherwise. But he cannot only because he has not received any reply from the Corporation, get on with the trade without licence. Obviously therefore an offence has been committed. Rightly the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused. Thus I find no merit in the Criminal Revision Case. Accordingly it is dismissed.