Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sri Ram Vs. Emperor

Sri Ram vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 30, 1934
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/472015

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Cantonments Act (U of 1924), Sections 210(m), 268 - Selling of bamboo within Cantonment area without license--Conviction under Section 268--Legality of. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sri Ram

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1934All987; 153Ind.Cas.131

Excerpt

cantonments act (u of 1924), sections 210(m), 268 - selling of bamboo within cantonment area without license--conviction under section 268--legality of. - sulaiman, c.j.1. this case is considered to be a test case and has been referred to a division bench. the applicant is a merchant who has been selling bamboos, bailies, takhats and karies, that is, bamboos, rafters, wooden boards and beams, within the limits of meerut cantonment without any license. he was prosecuted and found guilty by a magistrate under section 268, cantonments act, for being a dealer in wood. he has however been let off with a mere admonition. the question is whether the trade and calling of the applicant brings him within the category of 'dealer in hay, straw, wood, charcoal or other inflammable material' mentioned in clause (m), section 210. the word 'wood' used therein is very general and is not qualified in any way. but the learned advocate for the applicant contends before us that the last expression 'or other inflammable material' implies only the particular kind of wood which happens to be inflammable, is prohibited. this would mean that on some wet days a dealer in wood may not be offending against this provision and on some other days when the wood is dry he would be offending. in our opinion the proper interpretation of this category is that dealers in hay, straw wood and charcoal are not allowed to carry on their business without license because the legislature has presumed that they are inflammable materials and also dealers in other materials which are inflammable are equally prohibited. even if a forced construction were to be put on this class it can hardly be contended that; bamboo is not inflammable wood. the application is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

Sulaiman, C.J.

1. This case is considered to be a test case and has been referred to a Division Bench. The applicant is a merchant who has been selling bamboos, bailies, takhats and karies, that is, bamboos, rafters, wooden boards and beams, within the limits of Meerut Cantonment without any license. He was prosecuted and found guilty by a Magistrate under Section 268, Cantonments Act, for being a dealer in wood. He has however been let off with a mere admonition. The question is whether the trade and calling of the applicant brings him within the category of 'dealer in hay, straw, wood, charcoal or other inflammable material' mentioned in Clause (m), Section 210. The word 'wood' used therein is very general and is not qualified in any way. But the learned advocate for the applicant contends before us that the last expression 'or other inflammable material' implies only the particular kind of wood which happens to be inflammable, is prohibited. This would mean that on some wet days a dealer in wood may not be offending against this provision and on some other days when the wood is dry he would be offending. In our opinion the proper interpretation of this category is that dealers in hay, straw wood and charcoal are not allowed to carry on their business without license because the legislature has presumed that they are inflammable materials and also dealers in other materials which are inflammable are equally prohibited. Even if a forced construction were to be put on this class it can hardly be contended that; bamboo is not inflammable wood. The application is accordingly dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial