G.K. BAGCHI Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is against an, order of conviction and sentence under Section 537 read with Section 437(1)(d) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that when one Sanitary Officer of the Calcutta Corporation inspected premises No. 5, Tiljala Road, on March 5, 1963, it was noticed that the petitioners as partners of Cleback Boat Company had stored more than 50 maunds of timber in the premises for the purposes of their business, namely, manufacturing motor boats. Cleback Boat Company had, however, no licence as required under Section 437 (1)(d) of the said Act.

(3.) THE petitioners as partners of the company were, therefore, prosecuted under Section 537 of the Act. They pleaded not guilty. The learned Municipal Magistrate convicted both of them and sentenced each of them to a fine of Rs. 100, in default to rigorous imprisonment for one month. Mr. Banerjee has argued that with the coming into operation of the amended Section 38 of the Fire Services Act in Calcutta, Section 437 of the Calcutta Municipal Act stood repealed and so it was no -longer necessary for the petitioners to obtain a licence under Section 437(1) of that Act. This Court has held in Criminal Revn. Case No. 86 of 1962 (Cal.) that the amended Section 38 of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950, had retrospective -operation. At any rate, this was in operation in 1963 when the offence is said to have been committed. So the question arises if after the coming into force of the -amended Section 38 of the Fire Services Act, 1950, in Calcutta a licence is still to be obtained under Section 437(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act. Amended Section 38 reads as follows: