JUDGMENT

1. In this case the accused Umesh Chandra Mitra has been convicted under s. 175/492 of the Calcutta' Municipal Act (Act III B. C. of 1923), and has been sentenced to pay a line of Rs. 75 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The facts are as follows: It appears that on or about the 7th June 1924 a notice was served by the Corporation of Calcutta upon the accused under Schedule VI, Rule 12 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, of 1923, calling upon the accused to take out a license on payment of a fee of Rs. 50 for carrying on the business of a broker during the year 1924-25. The accused thereupon pointed out by a letter dated the 13th June, 1924, addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, that he did not carry on any independent business or trade and that he was merely a salesman in the Hardware Department of the Bombay Co., Ld. and, that, therefore, the notice dated the 7th June, 1924, should be cancelled. In reply to this letter the Corporation wrote on the 1st July, 1924, to say that the accused was liable to take out a license and they demanded a sum of Rs. 10 to be paid by the accused. The accused wrote again to the Corporation, pointing out that inasm