JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioners have been convicted of an offence under sees. 466, 574 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1899, namely, permitting premises to be used for a purpose specified in Sch. XVIII to the Act, namely, storing lime, without a licence. They obtained a rule calling on the Municipal Magistrate to show cause why this conviction should not be set aside on the ground that they had a licence under sec. 198 of the Act. The short point that we have to decide is whether the holder of a trading licence, i.e., a licence under sec. 198, is obliged to take out a licence under sec. 466. The question turns chiefly on the construction of the rules in Sch. II of the Act. But there are a few points connected with the contents of the Act which it is convenient to consider first. Sec. 198 occurs in Part IV of the Act headed "Taxation," and in Chap. XIV headed "Tax on Professions, Trades and Callings." It imposes a liability on any person carrying on a profession, trade or calling indicated in Sch. II to the Act, to take out an annual licence there prescribed. The object of the enactment is, as is indicated by the headings and other contents of the Part and Chapter, to provide a revenue for the carrying out of the purposes of the Act. 2. Sec. 466 occurs in Part V of the Act beaded- 'The Public Health, Safety and Convenience,' and in Chap. XXIII headed "Regulation of Trades, Factories, etc." It enacts, among other things, that no one shall use premises for any of the purposes mentioned in Sch. XVIII without a licence. The licence is not like a trading licence, made an annual one by the section by which it is made necessary: though it is treated as annual by sec. 108 of the Licence Manual. By sec. 467 the Corporation is to fix a scale of fees for the licences, none of which are to exceed Rs. 500, "or to be less than the amount otherwise payable for a trade or profession licence under Sch. II." 3. From this it appears that the purposes for which the two licences are made necessary are widely different, and that there is no necessary connection between the two. Also sec. 500, "or to be less than the amount otherwise payable for a trade or profession licence under Sch. II." 3. From this it appears that the purposes for which the two licences are made necessary are widely different, and that there is no necessary connection between the two. Also sec. 467 seems to contemplate a liability to take out licences under both sections in respect of one business. 4. Were further differences between the licences under the two sections required, they might be found in the two forms employed by the Corporation in granting them, Nos. 88 and 89 in the Licence Manual, where the imposition of terms in the licence under sec. 466 seems essential to its purpose. 5. The Petitioner does not contend that there is anything in the Act to suggest that he need not take out a licence under both sections; but he relies, on the rules contained in Sch. II, which indicate the fees payable for trades, etc., the carrying on of which is taxed under sec. 198. The Schedule begins with a table showing the fees to be paid by persons carrying on different trades, etc.. In some cases the same sum is to be paid by all persons carrying on a trade, in others the amount varies according to the value of the premises where it is carried on. By Rule 2 the former are defined, though clumsily only by inference, as personal licences; the latter (and a few others) expressly as local licences. By Rule 7, " where any person practices a profession, trade, or calling for which a personal licence should be taken out, and is also the owner or lessee of a place of business for which a local licence should be taken out, he shall, if the Chairman so directs, take out both a personal and local licence; provided that where the place of business is auxiliary to the practice of the profession, trade or calling, only one licence shall be required, and such licence shall be either personal or local as the Chairman may direct." The Petitioner carries on the business of a lime trader, and has taken out a licence accordingly under sec. 198 and argues that as his place of business is auxiliary to his calling only one licence is required, and that he cannot be called on to take out a licence under sec. 466. 198 and argues that as his place of business is auxiliary to his calling only one licence is required, and that he cannot be called on to take out a licence under sec. 466. This argument entirely overlooks the difference between a Schedule and an Act. The Schedule in this case deals with a particular tax, and shows how its amount is to be ascertained in every case where it is payable. The rules are framed for this purpose alone, and cannot be read as applying to anything except the subject-matter of the Schedule. The effect of Rule 2 is confined to the table of fees in Rule 1, for the proper application of which some such rule is obviously necessary. The same applies to Rule 7, which is equally necessary for the same purpose. If a vakil, who requires a personal licence (No. 8) keeps a printing press, which makes him liable for a local licence (No. 12), or if a dealer in precious stones (No. 17) is a shop-keeper (Nos. 7, 13, 28, &c), a question will arise which it requires Rule 7 to settle To extend the operation of these rules beyond the Schedule would be to give them an effect which it was obviously never intended that they should have, and which is plainly opposed to the general scheme of the Act. It follows that the taking out of a licence under sec. 198 is in itself no excuse for not taking out another under sec. 466, and that the scheduled rules that apply to the one have no application to the other The conviction of the Petitioner is therefore good and the rule is discharged.