Yahya Ali, J.
1. These two cases can be dealt with together as they raise a common point. In one case the respondent-accused was charged by the Executive Officer, Panchayat Board, Tadepalligudem, who is the petitioner here, with having without a licence boiled paddy. In the other case he was charged with having stored paddy without a licence. The prosecution case was that for both these processes it was necessary for the accused to obtain licences under Section 193 read with schedule VII of the Madras Local Boards Act. The learned Magistrate in acquitting the accused has pointed out that neither of these items is specifically inentioned in schedule VII and that therefore boiling of paddy or storing of paddy did not constitute offences under Section 193 and could not be made punishable under Section 207. He also considered the question whether they could come under the residuary item (q) of Schedule VII which speaks of a person generally ' doing in the course of any industrial process anything which is likely to be offensive or dangerous to-human life or health or property.' It has been pointed out by the Magistrate that there is no evidence to show that either of these processes was likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or public health. My attention has not been drawn to any other provision under which storage or boiling of paddy has been made an offence punishable under the Madras Local Boards Act. I see therefore no reason to interfere with the order made by the learned Magistrate.
2. The petitions are dismissed.