EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY VILAKKUDY PANCHAYAT Vs. JANARDANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the Executive Authority of the Vilakkudy Panchayat against the order passed by the Sub-Magistrate of Punalur acquitting the accused in C.C. 445/61 who had been charged for failure to take out a licence under bye law 20 of the Vilakkudy Panchayat for storing chemical preparations, viz., Arishtams and Asavams. The accused contended that no licence was necessary as Arishtams and Asavams cannot be said to be chemical preparations. Pw. 5 a doctor in the Government Ayurvedic dispensary was examined to prove that it is a chemical preparation and as such licence is necessary. On the side of the defence the accused examined himself as Dw. 1 and reliance was placed on two judgments, one passed by the Corporation First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum and another of the Additional Sub-Magistrate, Kottarakara for the contention that Aristhams and Asavams are not chemical preparations. I am not able to understand how these judgments would be admissible. Whether Arishtams and Asavams will constitute chemical preparation would depend on the nature of the various processes involved in the preparations which question has to be decided on the evidence in the case. Merely saying that it is doubtful whether Arishtams and Asavams would come under chemical preparations will not do. There must be a definite finding.

(2.) The view of the learned Magistrate that prosecution can be launched only after resorting to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act is not correct. It is enough to refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. C.M. Francis and Co. (AIR 1961 S.C. 617) where similar provisions in the Travancore - Cochin General Sales Tax Act came up for consideration. Their Lordships held:

(3.) Reliance was placed on the observation of Mahmood, J. in Shanker Sahai v. Din Dial (ILR 12 All. 409) that where the law provides two or more remedies, there is no reason to think that one debars the other and therefore both must be understood to remain open to him, who claims a remedy. So unless the statute in express words or by necessary implication lays down that one remedy was to the exclusion of the other, the observation of Mahmood, J. quoted above must apply and that in the absence of any such provision in the Act, both the remedies are open to the authorities, and they could resort to any one of them at their option.