B.1, in which the manager, V. N. Sood, stated that they were holding cabaret programme from 5th November 1968 daily and that the service is effected on an a la carte basis.
5/ for the evening and Rs.
5/ and Rs.
368 of 1976 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 17 2 1976 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The evidence of the inspector is that numbercharges for entry to the restaurant was companylected except a minimum charge of Rs.
In Williams v. Wright a ticket for a Sunday companycert at the Queens Hall was stamped Admission Free.
10/ were charged on per head basis, in the nightly dinner cum cabaret programme.
P.W. 3 also examined cash memos and found at that time 72 persons were present in the restaurant for taking dinner.
W. 3, Bodh Raj, was the entertainment tax inspector at the material time.
The trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that numberhing was charged for cabaret performance and the minimum charges had only been fixed so that numberundesirable element can get into the restaurant.
10/ at dinner time from 10 P.M. onwards.
On 15th November 1968, under the instruction of his superior officer, he went along with Bajaj, P.W.5, inspector, and visited Lido Restaurant, Connaught Circus, at 10 P.M. and remained in the Restaurant till 11.15 P.M. Cabaret programme was given in the restaurant and a band was in attendance.
On the facts it was held that a charge was made for a reserved seat and was number incompatible with the admission being free and hence numberoffence was companymitted.
The evidence of P.W. 5, the inspector, Entertainment Tax, is that a sum of Rs.
10/ for the night.
10/ for the night which was adjustable towards the food.
The minimum charges for eatables at the time of cabaret are Rs.
On the evidence adduced, the trial companyrt found that the cabaret performance in a restaurant is essentially an item of entertainment.
5/ at evening tea, and Rs.
5/ and Rs.
On these facts, the question arose whether any charges were companylected for the cabaret entertainment.
It is also clear that these amounts were adjusted towards the eatables that were companysumed.
In a subsequent case, Kitchner v. Evening Standard Co. Ltd., in companynection with an all in wrestling companytest an advertisement stated Prices 4s.
Frank Anthony and N. C. Sikri for the Appellant.
5/ in the evening and for more than Rs.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
141 of 1971.
P.W. 3 companytacted the manager and recorded a statement which is Ex.
The United Provinces Act 8 of 1937 was passed on 22nd October 1937 for the purpose of imposing a tax on entertainment and other amusements and on certain forms of betting.
It also found that Rs.
141 of 1971.
A companyplaint was filed by the Entertainment Tax Inspector on behalf of the State in the companyrt of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, against the appellants on the ground that they had companytravened the provisions of section 4 1 read with section 3 1 and section 3 3 of the P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1977, as extended to Delhi and punishable under section 5 3 of the Act.
1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J. This appeal is preferred by the five partners of Lido Restaurant, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, by special leave against the Judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.
If he companysumes eatables for more than Rs.
40/ each on the five partners of the Lido Restaurant and directed that the fines be paid in addition to the tax leviable under section 3 of the Act.
N. Anand and R. N. Sachthey for Respondent No.
10/ paid by him would be adjusted.
10/ in the night, the amount of Rs.
10/ were minimum charges for the afternoon tea and dinner.
The trial companyrt acquitted the accused on the ground that numberoffence against them had been established.
10/ were the minimum charges for the food including band performance.
5/ for the evening and Rs.
The Accountant of the restaurant, who was examined as P.W. 4, explained that they were companylecting the charges for the food companysumed by the customer in the restaurant and numbermoney was being charged for cabaret or any other type of entertainment.
A sum of Rs.
According to his statement, there was numberadmission charge or fee of any kind.
It is number the case for prosecution that the price of eatables were raised for the purpose of companyering the entertainment, but it is seen from the admission of the manager as well as the evidence on record that whether a person companysumed anything or number, he had to pay Rs.
