EXE OFFICER SULTHAN BATHERY Vs. DAMODARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTEDLY, the respondent/accused persons are owners of the building. Further admittedly, they did not pay the tax due in respect of the buildings 3/714, 3/715, 3/716 A to 3/716 L situated in Sulthan Bathery panchayath. The total amount of tax at the material point of time was Rs. 16 ,240 /=. A notice demanding the payment of tax also did not produce any result. A distraint warrant was sought to be executed through PW2. It also failed. It was found that they were residing outside the panchayath. They did not have therefore movables to be distraint. So distraint warrant was returned. It was in the above circumstances the prosecution was launched under section 74 of the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1960 read with Rule 26 of the Kerala panchayath Taxation and Appeal Rules.

(2.) THE main point of defence taken in the court below was that no proper distraint warrant had been issued and executed. THE court below found that PW2 returned Ext. P3 distraint warrant. Ext. P3 (a)endorsement reveals that there was no property in the limit of that panchayath. THErefore, the court below came to the conclusion that "it cannot be said that distraint warrant issued against the accused is impracticable. PWs 1 and 2 have to take steps to execute distraint warrant by sale of movable properties situated outside the limit of the panchayath as per Rules". This is the reason for acquitting the respondents/accused.

(3.) IN the aforesaid circumstances it is clear that the accused had willfully omitted to pay tax demanded and are thus guilty. They shall have therefore to pay a fine to the extent of double the amount of tax. IN default of payment they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The court below shall take step to execute this order. This appeal is allowed as above. . .