An unlicensed-business conviction requires proof linking the accused to the specific premises; a register entry alone is insufficient.

The Calcutta Municipal Corporation challenged the judgment dated 14.11.2000 by which the Trial Court acquitted the respondents in Case No. 1466C of 1994 of an offence under Section 199 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

The prosecution alleged that, during an inspection on 31.03.1994, a jewellery shop styled “Poddar Jewellers” was found at 5, Nalini Seth Road, Kolkata, and that the respondents failed to produce a valid licence for the year 1993–94.

The respondents relied on Exhibit-A, a licence-fee payment receipt indicating that their licensed business was situated at 1, Nalini Seth Road, and denied operating a jewellery shop at No. 5.

The prosecution relied, inter alia, on Exhibit-I, a certified copy of the T.P. Demand Register, and the evidence of its witnesses, but did not produce independent material connecting the respondents with the alleged establishment at No. 5.

The Trial Court extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondents.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents were carrying on a jewellery business at 5, Nalini Seth Road, Kolkata, so as to attract liability under Section 199 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

2. Whether the licence and payment receipt relating to the business at 1, Nalini Seth Road could establish or negate the respondents’ liability for an alleged unlicensed business at 5, Nalini Seth Road.

3. Whether the Trial Court’s order of acquittal was perverse, manifestly erroneous, or otherwise warranted interference in an appeal against acquittal.

The Court applied Section 199 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which requires the requisite municipal licence for carrying on the relevant trade or business from a particular premises.

A licence granted for one premises does not, by itself, authorise the same business at another premises; however, the prosecution must first prove that the accused actually carried on the business at the other premises.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving all essential ingredients of the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt, including the identity, existence, and connection of the accused with the allegedly unlicensed establishment.

In an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinforced, and appellate interference is justified only where the Trial Court’s view is perverse, manifestly erroneous, wholly unreasonable, or based on material misappreciation of evidence; a reasonably possible view must not be substituted merely because another view is possible.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court held that Exhibit-I merely showed an entry concerning “Poddar Jewellers” at 5, Nalini Seth Road; it did not conclusively connect that establishment with the respondents.

The prosecution witnesses could not satisfactorily explain the basis of the entry or produce any independent licence application, ownership or tenancy document, municipal record, or contemporaneous inspection material linking the respondents to that premises.

Conversely, Exhibit-A supported the respondents’ position that they held a licence for their business at 1, Nalini Seth Road.

Although that licence could not authorise business at another premises, the legal consequence urged by the Corporation could arise only after the foundational fact of business activity at No. 5 was established.

Since that fact remained unproved and the respondents’ defence was reasonably possible, the Trial Court correctly extended the benefit of doubt.

The Trial Court’s acquittal was found to be a reasonable and permissible view of the evidence, not perverse or legally infirm.

The appeal was dismissed, the acquittal dated 14.11.2000 was affirmed, and the Trial Court records were directed to be returned.