CORPORATION OF MADRAS Vs. RATHINAVELU MUDALIAR & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Corporation of Madras prosecuted the respondents accused, who are the trustees of Karaneeswarar Koil Devasthanam for an offence of running a private market at Premises No. 7, Jeenis Road Saidapet without a licence under Sec. 304 of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1919 as amended in 1936.

(2.) The learned Magistrate, on the view that the prosecution had failed to prove as to what was the gross income for the year 1958-59, acquitted the accused under Sec. 245 (1) Crimial P.C. A perusal of the judgment shows that the facts have not been precisely appreciated by the trial Magistrate. That the appellants were running a market during the year 1959-1960 was never disputed. Nor was it disputed that a licence was required under Sec. 304 of the Act to run the market. In fact the respondents applied on 10-2-1959 to the Corporation for a licence for running the private market in 1959-60 and enclosed with the application a cheque for Rs. 1500 towards the licence fee. By a communication dated 19-3-1959 the Corporation intimated the respondents that the renewal applied for could not be granted for certain reasons mentioned therein. Whether the requirements in that communication had been met by the respondents, it is by no means clear from the printed record. By a letter dated Oct., 12, 1959, the Corporation informed the respondents that licence fee was payable at 15% of the gross income collected by their lessee and called upon them to direct the lessee to produce on Oct., 21, 1959 by 12 noon the account books relating to the daily collections from the market, with a view to finally fix the total licence fee which the respondents would be liable to pay for the year 1959-1960. Whether the accounts as called for were produced by the respondents' lessee, does not also appear from the evidence. But it is clear that on 29-12-1959, the respondents remitted to the Corporation a further sum of Rs. 867 and requested it to issue the necessary licence for the market for the said year. Evidently in reply the Corporation intimated by letter dated 4-2-1960, addressed to the respondents that the total licence fees fixed on the gross income of the market amounted to Rs. 3411-30 Nps. and after giving credit to the payments already made by the respondents, there was still due from them towards the balance of licence fees a sum of Rs. 1044-30 Nps. This the Corporation called upon the respondents to remit within a week. On March, 8, 1960 the Corporation issued a notice to the respondents that it was in contemplation to prosecute them for running the market without a licence. This notice also reminded the respondent of the balance due towards the licence fees and called upon them to pay. The respondents having failed to pay, on March, 31, 1960 the Corporation instituted the prosecution against them.

(3.) The trial Magistrate, apparently without appreciating the real position, appears to have proceeded upon the footing that what was in dispute was whether licence fee was assessable on the rental received by the respondents from the lessee or the gross income consisting of the total collections made by the lessee of the respondents. As far as the record goes, it does not appear that the respondents at any time disputed that licence fee was payable on the gross income as computed on the basis of the total collections made by the lessee. If they disputed, that is not in evidence, as far as the printed record goes.