MAYAK PATHUMMA HAJUMMA Vs. KALPETTA PANCHAYAT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in Summary Trial Case No. 14/59 who has been convicted under S. 115 of the Madras Village Panchyats Act [act 10 of 1950)read with R. 31 [1] of the Village Panchayat Rules has filed this revision petition. THE charge against her was that she did not pay the house tax of Rs. 77. 78 due to the kalpetta Panchayat Board for the half year ending 31-3-1959.

(2.) THE only point that is argued in this case is that the prosecution has failed to establish that destraint of her property was impracticable and so a criminal prosecution will not lie. Rule 23 refers to the service of the bill on the person. Rule 24 (1) reads as follows: "if the amount of the tax demanded is not paid within fifteen days from the service of the bill or the giving of the direction referred to in R. 11 & the person from whom the tax is due has not shown cause to the satisfaction of the executive authority why it should not be paid the executive authority may recover by distraint under his warrant and sale of the movable property of the dafaulter the amount due on account of the tax together with the warrant fee and the distraint fee and with such further sum as will satisfy the probable charges that will be incurred in connection with the detention and sale of the property so distrained: Provided (2) If for any reason the distraint or a sufficient distraint of the defaulter's property is impracticable the executive authority may prosecute the defaulter before a Magistrate. Sub-r. [4] mentions how a distraint should be effected. So it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the provisions of the rule had been complied with and that distraint was impracticable. In the complaint which is in printed form there is the statement that the distraint of the accused's property for the recovery of the amount was found to be impracticable. Pw. 1 is the bill collector of the Panchayat who has filed this complaint. He says that distraint warrants were issued against the accused, that he went to execute them to the house of the accused and that he could not meet the accused and so returned the warrants. He admitted in cross-examination that the people told him that the accused was inside the house, but no attempt was made by him to meet her. THEre is also no evidence that subsequent to that fee made any attempt to distrain the property as contemplated under R. 24 [4]. He also does not say that distraint was found impracticable. It is only when the distraint of the property is found impracticable that the Panchayat is entitled to launch the prosecution.