AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
After hearing the learned Vakil who appeared in support of the Rule and also the learned Vakil showing cause on behalf of the Crown, we are clearly of opinion that this case does not fall u/s 54 of the Excise Act (VII of 1878, B. C). The license which is spoken of in that section is a license to a person, and not a license for specific area. Whether Section 59 applies or not is a question which we are not called upon to determine in this case, inasmuch as various questions might arise at the trial under that section as to the competence of the conditions in the license and as to whether any penalty followed on the breach of any particular conditions. These matters are not in any way before us.
The Rule must, therefore, be made absolute and the order of the lower Court must be discharged. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.