Skip to content


Public Prosecutor Vs. K. Saidali Kutti and Sons - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad624
AppellantPublic Prosecutor
RespondentK. Saidali Kutti and Sons
Cases ReferredN. E. By v. Kingston
Excerpt:
- - accused was prosecuted by the ponani taluk board for failure to take out license under schedule vii (c), madras act 14 of 1920, for a shed in which he stored or otherwise dealt with fish. when goods are kept in a shed or godown with a view to their subsequent consignment it is the best illustration of storage proper. in a business like accused's one package may only be stored a couple of nights, but it is succeeded by other packages, and the storing is practically continuous......schedule vii (c), madras act 14 of 1920, for a shed in which he stored or otherwise dealt with fish. accused is admittedly a forwarding agent who collects packages of fish and consigns them elsewhere. a day or two may elapse before consignment when accused keeps the fish in a rented shed. is this storing or otherwise dealing with? the sub-magistrate answers the question in the negative without any argument. the case is not parallel with that in emperor v. wallace flour mill co. [1905] 29 bom. 193 where it was held that oil stored for the lubrication of a machine on the premises was not stored within the mischief of section 394, city of bombay municipal act. when goods are kept in a shed or godown with a view to their subsequent consignment it is the best illustration of storage.....
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. Appeal by Government against acquittal of accused in C. C. No. 163 of 1926 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Magistrate of Tirur. Accused was prosecuted by the Ponani Taluk Board for failure to take out license under schedule VII (c), Madras Act 14 of 1920, for a shed in which he stored or otherwise dealt with fish. Accused is admittedly a forwarding agent who collects packages of fish and consigns them elsewhere. A day or two may elapse before consignment when accused keeps the fish in a rented shed. Is this storing or otherwise dealing with? The Sub-Magistrate answers the question in the negative without any argument. The case is not parallel with that in Emperor v. Wallace Flour Mill Co. [1905] 29 Bom. 193 where it was held that oil stored for the lubrication of a machine on the premises was not stored within the mischief of Section 394, City of Bombay Municipal Act. When goods are kept in a shed or godown with a view to their subsequent consignment it is the best illustration of storage proper. Nor does the shortness of the period affect the question. In a business like accused's one package may only be stored a couple of nights, but it is succeeded by other packages, and the storing is practically continuous.

2. The phrase 'dealing with' which must not be confounded with 'dealing in' makes the clause even wider. A man who handles goods in any way is dealing with them, and storing for private purposes apart from trade is dealing with N. E. By v. Kingston upon Hull [1891] 55 J. P. 518 quoted in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary. Coals for the owner's own use were 'dealt with.'

3. In these circumstances the order of acquittal is set aside accused is found guilty under Sections 193 and 207 of the Madras Act 14 of 1920 and sentenced to a fine of rupees five, in default one weeks rigorous imprisonment.


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