JOSEPH DEVASSIA KATAVIL Vs. CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CR. R. P. No. 302 of 1961 is filed by the accused in Summary Trial Case 1787 of I960. He was prosecuted by the Changanacherry Municipality for offences under Sections 334 and 359 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act -- Act XXIII of 1116--for contravention of the provisions of Section 261 and the bye-laws framed thereunder for having stored in building No. 348, tiles, bricks and surki without taking out a licence. The second Class Bench of Magistrates Changanacherry who tried the case convicted him of the offences charged. Cr. R. P. No. 310 of 1961 is filed by the accused in Summary Trial Case 1786 of 1960 who had been convicted for a like offence for having stocked for sale coffee husk and tea without obtaining a licence. Cr. R. P. Nos. 382 and 383 of 1961 are filed by one P. K. Hassanbava Rowther, a Tea Merchant in Kottayam, who was prosecuted and convicted for an offence under Rule 31 (2) read with Rule 38 of Schedule II and Section 360 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act for failure to pay profession, tax. In all these petitions the common question of law that arises is whether the revision petitions filed by them are maintainable.

(2.) CFAUSA 5 of Section 439, Cr. P. C. reads as follows:

(3.) SECTION 414, Cr. P. C. says that there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any case tried summarily in which a Magistrate empowered to act under Section 260 passes a sentence of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees only. There is no dispute that the accused were tried summarily, but were they tried and convicted by a Bench of Magistrates invested with the powers of the Magistrate of the First Class as contemplated under Section 260 Cr. P. C. ? If the conviction is only by a Second Class Bench of Magistrates appeal would certainly lie.