H NARAYANAN NAIR Vs. IDICULLA EAPEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the Thalavady Panchayat against the order of the District Magistrate of Alleppey acquitting the accused who was prosecuted for the offence under S.104 of the Travancore - Cochin Panchayat Act - Act 2 of 1950 - [hereinafter referred to as the Act] for having run a power driven rice mill without a licence as enjoined by the notification under S.80 of the Act. It has been amply proved that the mill was run without a licence and this fact is not disputed by the defence.

(2.) The learned District Magistrate based his order of acquittal on two grounds, namely that there was no valid authorisation for prosecution under S.88 of the Act; and secondly that the failure of the accused to take out a licence was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he had expressed his readiness to take out a licence.

(3.) Coming to the first point, according to the learned District Magistrate the authorisation must be for the prosecution of a specified individual and for a specific offence after the Panchayat had applied its mind to the facts of the case and the need to prosecute, The learned District Magistrate relied for this view on the decision in City Corporation of Trivandrum v. V.A.N. Arunachalam Reddiar [ 1960 KLT 515 .] There is nothing in the decision which indicates that the authorisation contemplated cannot be in the shape of a general delegation. This question has been set at rest by the decision in Municipal Health Officer & Food Inspector, Kozhikode v. Arthala Tea Estate Company [ 1960 KLT 743 ] and it has been followed in later decisions of this Court. The section confers upon the Panchayat the power to delegate generally their authority to make a complaint to their Executive Officers and it is for that authority to exercise their decision and decide whether in any given case a complaint shall or shall not be made