In Re: Maturi Venkatasubbayya - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
madras district municipalities act (iv of 1884), sections 188 (1) (b), (5, 189 - license for batting paddy,(application for--failure to pass order on application within 30 days of receipt, effect of --section, 188 (5), scope of. - - he subsequently appealed against the refusal unsuccessfully......of an offence punishable under section 189, act iv of 1884, that is, boiling paddy in an unlicensed place.2. there is no dispute as to the facts. the offence is alleged to have been committed on 29th september 1915. the petitioner's last license expired on 30th april 1915. he applied for a fresh license on 4th may 1915, but received no order granting or refusing one until 6th september 1915, when his application was refused. he subsequently appealed against the refusal unsuccessfully. but that is not material, because he argues that under section 188 (5) if a license is not refused within thirty days of its being applied for, the place in question shall be held to be duly licensed for the financial year for which the license was sought.3. this argument is justified by the wording.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 189, Act IV of 1884, that is, boiling paddy in an unlicensed place.

2. There is no dispute as to the facts. The offence is alleged to have been committed on 29th September 1915. The petitioner's last license expired on 30th April 1915. He applied for a fresh license on 4th May 1915, but received no order granting or refusing one until 6th September 1915, when his application was refused. He subsequently appealed against the refusal unsuccessfully. But that is not material, because he argues that under Section 188 (5) if a license is not refused within thirty days of its being applied for, the place in question shall be held to be duly licensed for the financial year for which the license was sought.

3. This argument is justified by the wording of Section 188 (5); for we cannot accept the learned Public Prosecutor's suggestion that it should be read subject to the reference to the refusal of the license in Sections 189. If it were so read, Section 188 (5) would to a large extent be deprived of its necessity. We set aside the decision of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, acquit the accused and order that the fine, if paid, be refunded.

4. Petition allowed; Conviction set aside.