ORDER
K.L. Pandey, J.
1. This reference made by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, is directed against the conviction of the non-applicant 10r two offences under Section 32 of the Central Provinces and Berar Shops and Establishments Act, 1957, for breach of Sections 4A 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. BO or to suffer, in default, simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The trying Magistrate found that the non-applicant used the premises in his occupation for stocking, and letting on hire, bicycles. 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. There fore, the non-applicant who failed to get it duly registered as required by Section 4 of the Act, committed an offence punishable under Section 32 of the Act. Further the non-applicant employed in the shop Gaurishanker (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 under Section 32 of the Act.
3. Since there was no selling on the non-applicant’s premises, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in taking the view that be was not running a shop: Kalidas Dhanjibhai v. State of Bombay 1954II L.L.J. 694 . 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 General Cab Co., Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners 1950II All. E.R. 566 .
4. In regard to the second offence, I agree with the Additional Sessions Judge that there is no evidence to show that Gaurishanker (P. W. 2) was at the relevant time a child, meaning one who had not completed his twelfth year. The evidence of B N. Sahu (P. W. 3,) is in fact contra-indicative.
5. The reference is accepted. The conviction of the non-applicant for the two offences and the sentences awarded to him are’ set aside and he is acquitted. The fines, if paid, shall be refunded.
