Pakkiriswami Pillai vs The Municipal Commissioner

Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.—This revision petition is by accused 2 who has been found guilty u/s 270 of the District Municipalities Act and

has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to simple imprisonment for one week, by the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Tanjore,

in O. C. No. 2 of 1956. The charge against the petitioner was that he along with accused 1, who is not before me, was running a lorry-stand In T.

S. No. 2985/P of Ward 6 of Tanjore Municipality without a licence and had therefore committed an offence punishable u/s 270 of the District

Municipalities Act.

The owner of the land is accused 1 who has been acquitted on the ground that there was no evidence that he had used his land as a stand for

parking lorries. It has not been proved that he had leased out this land to accused 2, the petitioner before me, for such a purpose. Nor has it been

proved by any evidence that the petitioner had any control over the use of this land, either by way of a lease or by any permission or licence from

its owner.

Except the evidence of P.W. 6 who says that he saw lorries being parked on the site in question and gives expression to his opinion or inference

that these lorries were being parked on the site for the purpose of loading and unloading with the permission of the petitioner, there is no other

evidence which could be accepted. The mere fact that lorries are parked on the site for the purpose of loading and unloading and the fact that the

petitioner is a broker dealing in the securing of custom for lorries, which happen to come to the site in question, would not amount to running of a

stand for lorries.

Parking of the lorries on the site must be directly attributable to the accused and his responsibility therefore should be established. In order to

prove that the petitioner was really using the land in question not belonging to him as a stand for lorries, something newer must be established. He

should either have control over the land or exercise authority over the land. He must be in a position to allow or disallow the parking of lorries on

the land, or he must be making some benefit by allowing the lorries to be parked on the site in question. If lorry-drivers bring their lorries and park

them on a vacant site near the office of the accused, unless it is proved that they do so on his permission only, it cannot be said that the accused is

using the vacant site as a lorry stand.

When nothing of these things is proved, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established a case that the petitioner has been using the land as a

stand for the parking of lorries, and that he was doing so without a licence"". I do not think that the conviction is therefore based on any evidence

which could be said to have brought home the guilt to the accused-petitioner. The petitioner is therefore entitled to be acquitted. The conviction

and the sentence are both set aside; and the fine, if paid, will be refunded.