State vs Khushal Chand

K.L. Pandey J.

This reference made by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, is directed against the conviction of the non-applicant for two offences u/s 32 of the Central Provinces and Berar Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, for breach of sections 4-A and 24 of the Act, for each of which Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, in a summary trial, sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ or to suffer in default, simple imprisonment for one month.

The trying Magistrate found that the non-applicant used the premises in his occupation for stocking, and letting on hire, bicycle. Since the premises were used for rendering services by letting out bicycles on hire, they constituted a shop within the meaning of clause (17) of section 2 of the Act. Therefore, the non-applicant, who failed to get it duly registered as required by section 4-A of the Act, committed an offence punishable u/s 32 of the Act. Further,'' the non-applicant employed in the shop of Gaurishankar (P.W. 2) a boy aged ten. for cleaning bicycles and had thereby contravened section 24 of the Act and so committed another offence punishable u/s 32 of the Act.

Since there was no selling on the non-applicant's premises, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in taking the view that he was not running a shop: Kalidas Dhanjibhai Vs. The State of Bombay, The trying Magistrate has, however, held that services were being rendered in the premises because bicycles were let out on hire there. Merely giving in the premises bicycles on hire does not amount to rendering services, there So it was held that, when cab-owners gave their cabs to drivers under arrangement whereby the drivers paid to the owners a proportion of the money received by them as fares from passengers, the cab-owners were not in fact rendering a service: London Genera/ Cab-Co. Ltd. vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners 1950 (II) All ER 566.

In regard to the second, offence. I agree with the Additional Sessions Judge that there is no evidence to show that Gaurishankar (P.W. 2) was, at the relevant time, a child meaning one who had not completed his 12th year. The evidence of B.N. Sahu (P.W. 3) is in fact contra-indicative,

The reference is accepted The conviction of the non-applicant for the two offences and the sentences awarded to him are set aside a (sic) is acquitted The fines, if paid, shall be refunded.