STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JAMNADAS GORDHANDAS
LAWS(BOM)-1954-10-5
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on October 08,1954

STATE OF BOMBAY Appellant
VERSUS
JAMNADAS GORDHANDAS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

THE QUEEN V. BISHOP OF OXFORD [REFERRED TO]
TUCK AND SONS V. PRIESTER [REFERRED TO]
R. V. TRONOH MINES,LTD. [REFERRED TO]
TOLARAM RELUMAL V. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
NORTHEASTERN RY. CO. V. BERRIMAN [REFERRED TO]
DILWORTH,V. COMMISSIONER FOR LAND AND INCOMETAX [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE short question which arises for decision on this reference is whether the godown in question which belongs to the accused is a shop within the meaning of S. 2 (27) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. This question arises in this way :
(2.)THE accused owns a bidi shop at house No. 567, Nana Peth, Poona. Attached to this shop is a godown. In addition to this godown the accused owns another godown at No. 231/1, Nana Peth. The case against the accused was that on 9 August, 1953 the inspector of shops visited this latter godown at about 9 a. m. He discovered that a statement in form A had not been submitted by the accused in respect of this godown, although the godown was used for storage of bidi leaves for more than six months. This constitutes an offence under S. 7 (1) of the Act. It was also found that the closure notice board was not displayed in the godown. This constitutes an offence under S. 18 (1) of the Act. The inspector also noticed that a visit book was not maintained in this godown, and this amounts to a contravention of rule 18 (4) of the rules framed by the local Government under the provisions of the Act, and thus becomes an offence punishable under the Act. The charge against the accused, therefore, was that he had committed the three aforesaid offence. His plea was that the godown in question is not a shop within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, he had committed no offence. The learned magistrate who tried the case rejected the plea made by the accused, accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused of all the three offences charged. He directed him to pay Rs. 25 as fine or in default to suffer seven day's simple imprisonment. This order was challenged by the accused by a revisional application preferred by him in the Court of Session at Poona. The learned Sessions Judge was disposed to accept the contention raised by the accused that the godown in question is not a shop and so he has made the present reference to us. The learned Sessions Judge has recommended that since the godown does not amount to a shop, no offence can be said to have been proved against the accused and so the order of conviction and sentence passed against him should be set aside. That is how the short question which we have to decide in the present proceedings is, whether the godown in question is a shop within the meaning of S. 2 (27) of the Act.
(3.)SECTION 2 (27) defines the term "shop" in these words :
"'shop' means any premises where goods are sold, either by retail or wholesale, or where services are rendered to customers, and includes an office, a storeroom, godown, warehouse or workplace, whether in the same premises or otherwise, mainly used in connexion with such trade or business but does not include a factory a commercial establishment, residential hotel, restaurant, eating house, theatre or other place of public amusement or entertainment; "



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.