Skip to content


Brijlal Bansilal Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Bom193; 1950CriLJ1362
AppellantBrijlal Bansilal
RespondentThe State
Excerpt:
- - 7. in the circumstances it seems to me that the conviction of the applicant for his failure to make a report to the deputy commissioner as required by rule 18 is correct......giving reasons for issuing tickets in excess of per cent. it is common ground that the applicant issued complimentary tickets for 6 seats, in a class where the accommodation is for eighty persons, on and december 1948 for the first show. this was in exces3 of 6 per cent., yet the applicant made no report to the deputy commissioner as required by rule 18.3. according to the applicant, there was no need to make the report as there were two shows on 2nd december 1948, and the complimentary tickets issued by him on that day were less than 6 per cent, of the aggregate accommodation for that particular class of both the shows for that day. further, according to him, rule 18 is ultra vires for reasons to which i shall advert presently.4. as regards the first point, i am clear that there is no.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Mudholkar, J.

1. The applicant, who is the proprietor of Shri Gajanan Talkies at Buldana, has been convicted under Section 25 of the Rules framed under the Entertainments Duty Act, 1936, for the breach of Rule 18 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 95.

2. Rule 18 requires that where complimentary tickets for an entertainment are issued in excess of 6 per cent, of the accommodation for any class, the proprietor of the entertainment shall make a return to the Deputy Commissioner in respect of such tickets giving reasons for issuing tickets in excess of per cent. It is common ground that the applicant issued complimentary tickets for 6 seats, in a class where the accommodation is for eighty persons, on and December 1948 for the first show. This was in exces3 of 6 per cent., yet the applicant made no report to the Deputy Commissioner as required by Rule 18.

3. According to the applicant, there was no need to make the report as there were two shows on 2nd December 1948, and the complimentary tickets issued by him on that day were less than 6 per cent, of the aggregate accommodation for that particular class of both the shows for that day. Further, according to him, Rule 18 is ultra vires for reasons to which I shall advert presently.

4. As regards the first point, I am clear that there is no warrant for taking the aggregate of the total accommodation of all the shows held in a particular day for arriving at the maximum percentage of complimentary admissions on that day. Rule 18 speaks of 'admission to an entertainment' which means nothing more than 'a show.' It does not mean all the shows held on a particular day. There is nothing whatsoever in the rule which can support the contention of learned Counsel,

5. Now as to the second point, learned Counsel pointed out that Rule 18 has been framed under S- 8 of the Act, said that the rule purports to restrict the number of complimentary tickets in a particular way and argued that the rule, in so far as it restricts the number of complimentary tickets, is ultra vires of the rule-making power of the Government. Even assuming that Section 8 does not permit framing of a rule restricting the issue of complimentary tickets, I am clear that Rule 18 does nothing of the kind. All that it requires is that where complimentary tickets on a particular day exceed 6 per cent, of the accommodation of a class, a report of that fact has to be made to the Deputy Commissioner together with reasons for the issue of complimentary tickets in excess of c per cent. This rule, in my opinion, was dearly within the rule-making powers conferred on Government by sub-Clause (d) of Clause (2) of Section 8 which is in the following terms:

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Provincial Government may make rules

* * * *(d) for the checking of admissions, the keeping of accounts and for the furnishing of returns by the proprietors of entertainments in respect of which entertainment duty is payable in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 4.

6. learned Counsel, however, referred to B, 6 which is in the following terms:

5. (1) No proprietor of an entertainment shall admit to the entertainment any person other than an officer authorised Under Section 9 of the Act who does not hold a ticket or a badge denoting that the person is his employee,

(2) No person other than an officer authorized Under Section 9 of the Act, shall enter or otherwise obtain admission to an entertainment unless ha holds a ticket or a badge referred to in Sub-rule (1).

and argued that this rule has to be read with Rule 18 and that reading the two rules together, it would appear that a restriction hag been placed on the number of complimentary tickets which can be issued by the proprietor of an entertain, meni It seems to me that the two rules are quite independent of one another and further that even if they are read together, a restriction of the kind suggested by the learned Counsel cannot be made out. I may, however, point out that the Act has now been amended and power expressly conferred upon the Government to prescribe limits for the issue of complimentary tickets.

7. In the circumstances it seems to me that the conviction of the applicant for his failure to make a report to the Deputy Commissioner as required by Rule 18 is correct. I therefore affirm it. The fine imposed is not excessive and so I affirm it also and dismiss this application.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //