Skip to content


The Public Prosecutor Vs. T. Krishna Rao - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1957)2MLJ637
AppellantThe Public Prosecutor
RespondentT. Krishna Rao
Excerpt:
- .....granted for the same. no final order either rejecting or granting permission was passed. but the municipal council by its resolution dated 7th january, 1956, recommended to the government for granting exemption as the government in their memorandum no. 46697 of 1952 i.t. health dated 14th october, 1952 had instructed that even small h.p. electric motor should not be permitted in residential areas. what orders have been passed on the recommendation are not disclosed by the evidence in the case. in these circumstances on inspection by one of the officers of the municipality it was discovered that this respondent was working the machine. then the prosecution was launched against the respondent under section 250(1)(b) and section 313. section 250(1)(b) is in the following termsevery person.....
Judgment:

Somasundaram, J.

1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in C.C. 1 of 1956 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate, Tanjore.

2. The respondent was prosecuted according to the charge-sheet for offences under Section 250 read with Section 313 of the District Municipalities Act. The respondent by an application, Exhibit P-1, dated 12th May, 1955, applied to the Municipality for the installation of an automatic Heidelberg Printing Machine operated by electrical power of two H.P. to be attached to the already existing Printing Press Machine. By Exhibit P-2 dated 25th May, 1955 the Commissioner informed him that the application is under scrutiny and consideration, and therefore the respondent should not commence the work till permission is granted for the same. No final order either rejecting or granting permission was passed. But the Municipal Council by its resolution dated 7th January, 1956, recommended to the Government for granting exemption as the Government in their memorandum No. 46697 of 1952 I.T. Health dated 14th October, 1952 had instructed that even small H.P. electric motor should not be permitted in residential areas. What orders have been passed on the recommendation are not disclosed by the evidence in the case. In these circumstances on inspection by one of the officers of the Municipality it was discovered that this respondent was working the machine. Then the prosecution was launched against the respondent under Section 250(1)(b) and Section 313. Section 250(1)(b) is in the following terms

Every person intending * * * (b) to install in any premises any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by steam, water or other power as aforesaid (not being machinery or manufacturing plant exempted by rules) shall,before beginning such constructions, establishment or installation make an application in writing to the municipal council for permission to undertake the intended work.

3. Under Clause 3(a) the municipal council shall as soon as may be after the receipt of the application grant the permission applied for either absolutely or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose, or refuse permission if it is of opinion that such construction, establishment or installation is objectionable by reason of the density of the population in the neighbourhood or that it is likely to cause a nuisance. Under Section 321 Clause (11) of the Act,..if orders on an application for licence or permission or registration are not communicated to the applicant within thirty days after the receipt of the application by the executive authority, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the year or for such less period as is mentioned in the application, and subject to the law, rules, by-laws, regulations and all conditions ordinarily imposed.

4. In this case the Commissioner by his letter dated 25th May, 1955 directed the respondent not to commence the work till the licence is granted. This is certainly not an order of refusal within the meaning of Section 250(3)(b), as under that section it is the Municipal Council who should refuse or grant the permission. An interim order passed by the Commissioner to the effect mentioned above cannot be construed as an order passed by the Municipal Council. At any rate there is no evidence that the Municipal Council met and passed a resolution to the effect that applicant should not install the machine till the permission is granted. There is, therefore, no refusal by the Municipal Council as required by Section 250(3)(b) In the absence of such a refusal the provisions of Clause (11) of Section 321 will apply. This is a case in which the permission that is asked for is not an yearly one as this is a question of installing machinery, which does not require an yearly or annual licence. It is only for the use of it that such a permission or licence annually may be necessary. Therefore under Section 321 Clause (11) the permission must be deemed to have been granted for the installation of the machine. If it is deemed to have been granted, there can be no offence under Section 250(1)(b) read with Section 313(c). No offence has, therefore, been made out, and the acquittal is, therefore, justifiable on this ground The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

5. This will not stand in the way of the Municipality prosecuting the respondent for any other offences under any other sections of the District Municipalities Act. He cannot be prosecuted any more for not complying with the provisions of Section 250(1)(b). For non-compliance of any other provisions, relating to this namely two HP Machine this acquittal will not stand in the way.


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