Case Note & Summary
The case involves multiple criminal writ petitions filed by the petitioners, who were prosecuted for displaying an illuminated signboard bearing the name 'Deepa Bar' outside their business premises. The petitioners, holding different positions in the same bar, were charged under Section 328A read with Section 471 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, for allegedly displaying an advertisement without a license. The complaints were cryptic, containing only a one-line allegation that a signboard of a particular size was displayed. The core legal issue was whether a signboard indicating the name of a business place amounts to an advertisement under the Act. The petitioners argued that such a signboard is not an advertisement and therefore not an offence. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in ICICI Bank & Anr. v. Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 404, which held that whether a signboard constitutes an advertisement depends on the facts of each case, considering factors like commercial interest. The court noted that the complaints lacked any details to suggest that the signboard had a commercial or business interest beyond identifying the location. Consequently, the court quashed the complaints and the proceedings against the petitioners, holding that the display of a signboard indicating the name of a business place does not amount to an advertisement under Section 328A, and therefore no offence under Section 471 is made out.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Advertisement - Definition - Section 328A, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Signboard indicating name of business place - The court considered whether a signboard displaying the name of a bar (Deepa Bar) constitutes an advertisement. Relying on ICICI Bank v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay, (2005) 6 SCC 404, the court held that whether a signboard amounts to an advertisement depends on the facts of each case. In the absence of any details in the complaints, the signboard merely indicating the name of the business place cannot be treated as an advertisement. The prosecution under Section 471 for violation of Section 328A was quashed. (Paras 2-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Complaint - Sufficiency of Allegations - Section 328A, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - The complaints were cryptic, containing only a one-line allegation that a signboard of a particular size was displayed outside the bar. No details of the alleged offence were provided. The court held that such vague complaints cannot sustain a prosecution for an offence under Section 328A read with Section 471. (Paras 2, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the display of an illuminated signboard indicating the name of a business place amounts to an advertisement within the meaning of Section 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, and whether such display without a license is punishable under Section 471 of the said Act.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petitions and quashed the complaints and proceedings against the petitioners. The court held that the display of a signboard indicating the name of a business place does not amount to an advertisement within the meaning of Section 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, and therefore no offence under Section 471 is made out.
Law Points
- Signboard indicating name of business place does not amount to advertisement
- Display of signboard without license not an offence under Section 328A and 471 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- Question of whether signboard is advertisement depends on facts of each case
