R.P.MOOKERJEE J. - (1.) THIS rule was issued against an order of acquittal passed by the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta and raises some very important questions of law.
(2.) A complaint was filed on behalf of the Corporation of Calcutta against the opposite party station inter alia that premises No. 43, Dharamtola Street, Calcutta was being used or permitted to be used as grains, Sour and atta shop without taking out a license for the year 1945 -46 under Section 386, Calcutta Municipal Act. Summons was accordingly issued against the opposite party. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 1st March 1948 held that the storing of grains in the premises was by the Post and Telegraphs Department of the Government for the benefit of the employees of that Department, and not for trade, and to that purpose could not be taken to be "storing" as contemplated under Section 386 (1) (a), Calcutta Municipal Act; and that the prosecution was also bad in law as the relevant provisions could not bind the Crown. The Magistrate accordingly acquitted the accused of the charges.
(3.) MR . Basu appearing on behalf of the Corporation contends that Section 386 read with Schedule 19, Calcutta Municipal Act, is attracted if any one of the different items mentioned in the Schedule are stored, irrespective of the fact whether such storing is for purposes of trade. Chapter 26, Calcutta Municipal Act, is headed as for "Inspection and Regulation of premises, and of factories, trades and places of public resort." This chapter is sub -divided into two parts. Sections 380 to 384 are under the subheading "Premises generally." Sections 385 to 391 are under the sub -heading "Factories, trades and places of public resort." It is contended on behalf of the Corporation that the provisions of Section 386 are to be interpreted without any reference to the sub -heading "Factories, trades and places of public resort." This contention cannot be upheld. The headings prefixed to a section or a set of sections in modern statutes are regarded as preambles to those sections. It is now a settled rule that the function of the preamble is to explain what is ambiguous in the enactment and it may either restrain or explain it as best suits the intention. In re Carlton, (1945) Ch. 372 : 114 LJ Ch. 289; citing Corporation of the City of Toronto v. Toronto Rail, way Co., (1907) AC 315 at p. 324 : (76 LJ PC 57).;