Public Prosecutor, A. P. , Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
T. L. Vasudevaiah Chetty – Respondent
( 2 ) THE facts which are not in dispute, are as follows :- the respondent had obtained a licence for running the machinery for the year ending with 31 st March, 1956. On 28th March, 1956, he sent an application to the executive Authority for renewal of his licence together with the required fee as also an additional fee for belated application ; but he did not receive any communication from the Executive Authority. The respondent, however, continued to work the machinery. He was prosecuted for running the machinery from 1st April, 1956 to 26th April, 1956 without a licence.
( 3 ) ON these facts the learned Magistrate took the view that since the Municipal authority had not rejected the application submitted by the respondent or sent any communication to the respond
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.