Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the sole accused in A. P. C. 6353 of 1989, pending on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet. Madras on a final report filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police. J2. Adayar Police Station, Madras. 20, after completion of investigation in Cr. No. 1408 of 1989 on the file of J. 2 Adayar Police Station, the trial Magistrate took cognizance, of an offence punishable under section 74 of the Tamilnadu City Police Act, against the petitioner. ( 2 ) IN this petition preferred under section 482, Cr. P. C. to call for the recodes and quash the pending prosecution as not maintainable and an abuse of process of Court. Mr. C. Vijayakumar, Learned Counsel representing the petitioner, contended that on the averments made in the charge sheet, no offence under section 74 of the Act gets disclosed. He further contended, that an offence under section 74 of the Act was not cognizable and presenting of a charge sheet alone before the trial Magistrate, without any other material and without obtaining the order of the Magistrate, would not be in consonance with law. ( 3 ) ON these contentions, I have heard Mr. S. Shanmughavelayudham, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He fairly stated, that on the allegations made in the charge sheet an offence under Section 74 of the Act does not get attracted. On the second contention, he submitted that section 155 Cr. P. C. will come into operation since the offence was non-cognizable. ( 4 ) SINCE, on the first contention the petitioner is bound to succeed, a detailed discussion on the second contention, does not appear to be necessary, when the learned counsel representing the petitioner himself has not prepared himself, to substantiate his submission. The charge sheet contains the following allegations. At or about 5. 15 P. M. on 13-7-1989 at Door No. 28, S. P. Road, the petitioner. had kept on a burning stove, a big vessel with oil, to prepare, Bajji, Vadai and Bonda, as to cause danger to public. ( 5 ) SECTION 74 of the Act imposes penalty for lighting any bonfire/burning straw (drawing, carrying, dragging or burning any effigy) discharging any fire-arm or airgun etc. , in or near any public place. had kept on a burning stove, a big vessel with oil, to prepare, Bajji, Vadai and Bonda, as to cause danger to public. ( 5 ) SECTION 74 of the Act imposes penalty for lighting any bonfire/burning straw (drawing, carrying, dragging or burning any effigy) discharging any fire-arm or airgun etc. , in or near any public place. The section read as follows: whoever, except at such times and places as the Commissioner may blow, in or near any public place lights any bonfire or airgun, lets off or discharges any fire-work, or sends up any fire-baloon, or permits such act to be done is premises over which he has control, shall be liable on conviction to fine not exceeding fifty rupees. In the event of any such act being done within any private premises, the person having the immediate control of such premises shall be deemed to have permitted the act, unless he can prove that the act was committed without his knowledge. ( 6 ) THE prosecution case narrated earlier, clearly shows, that this prosecution for the alleged commission of an offence under section 74 of the Tamilnadu Police Act is totally misconceived. It is not disputed, that the petitioner is a licence holder, to run a tea stall at the premises mentioned in the charge sheet Padmini Jesurhi, J. , in Cr1. M. P. No. 6053 of 1984, had occasion to consider the scope for launching of a prosecution under 76 f the Tamilnadu City Police Act, on the allegation that in the licenced tea shop of the petitioner concerned, he had sold vadai and bonda; without the permission of the commissioner of Police. Holding that neither section 76 of the Tamilnadu City Police Act nor the conditions stipulated in the licence prohibited sale of vadai or bonda in the tea stall run by the petitioner therein, the learned lodge quashed the proceeding, as not sustainable. ( 7 ) THIS prosecution appears to be one more instance where, without application of mind, prosecution has been initiated mechanically. In a licenced tea stall, unless the conditions of the licence prohibit preparation and sale of eatables which, if done, may amount to violation of conditions of the licence a prosecution of this nature cannot be otherwise sustained. The preparation of eatables was inside the licenced premises and it is not known; how this will cause danger to public. In a licenced tea stall, unless the conditions of the licence prohibit preparation and sale of eatables which, if done, may amount to violation of conditions of the licence a prosecution of this nature cannot be otherwise sustained. The preparation of eatables was inside the licenced premises and it is not known; how this will cause danger to public. This petition is allowed, on the sole ground, that the allegations in the charge sheet, do not attract the ingredients of an offence punishable under section 74 of the Tamilnadu Police Act. Petition allowed.