C. Setalvad, A. N. Sinha and Sukumar Ghose, for the respondent, S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for inter vener No.
D. Banerjee, Advocate General for the State of West Bengal, Sen, P. K. Chatterjee, M. K. Banerjee and P. K. Bose, for the appellant.
SHAH, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.
was delivered by SBBBA RAO, C. J. BACHAWAT J., delivered a separate companycurring Judgment.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 29, 1964 ,of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The relevant facts are simple and are number in dispute.
Hence the present appeal.
V. Rangam, for intervener No.
Subbarao, C.J. This Full Bench of 9 Judges has been companys tituted to companysider the companyrectness of the decision of this Court in Director of Rationing and Distribution v. The Corporation of Calcutta 1 .
A. Seyid Muhamad, Advocate General for the State of Kerala and A. G. Puddisery, for intervener No.
369 of 1962.
The Judgment of SUBBA RAO, C.J., WANCHOO, SIKRI, RAMASWAMI, SHELAT, BHARGAVA and VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
193 of 1964.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The State of West Bengal was carrying on the trade of a daily market at 1, Orphanganj Road, Calcutta, without obtaining a licence as required under s. 218 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 West Bengal Act 33 of 1951 hereinafter called the Act.
N. Shroff, for intervener No.
B. Mehta, for intervener No.
P. Rana, for intervener No.
The learned Magistrate, accepting the said companytention, acquitted the State.
The Corporation of Calcutta filed a companyplaint against the State of West Bengal in the Court of the Presidency and Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, under s. 541 of the Act for companytravening the provisions of s. 218 thereof.
It distinguished the decision of this Court in Director of Rationing and Distribution v. The Corporation of Calcutta 1 on the ground that the said decision was companycerned with the sovereign activity of the State.
