ORDER :- This rule was issued against an order of acquittal passed by the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta and raises some very important questions of law.

2. A complaint was filed on behalf of the Corporation of Calcutta against the opposite party station inter alia that premises No. 43, Dharamtola Street, Calcutta was being used or permitted to be used as grains, flour and atta shop without taking out a license for the year 1945-46 under S. 386, Calcutta Municipal Act. Summons was accordingly issued against the opposite party. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 1st March 1948 held that the storing of grains in the premises was by the Post and Telegraphs Department of the Government for the benefit of the employees of that Department, and not for trade, and to that purpose could not be taken to be "storing" as contemplated under S. 386(1)(a), Calcutta Municipal Act; and that the prosecution was also bad in law as the relevant provisions could not bind the Crown. The Magistrate accordingly acquitted the accused of the charges.

3. Mr. Basu appearing on behalf of the Corporation contends that S. 386 had with Sch. 19, Calcutta Municipal Act, is attracted if any one of the different

Click Here to Read the rest of this document