PRABHAKARAN Vs. MADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Shertallai for an offence punishable under S.355(1)(c) of the Kerala Municipalities Act -- Act XIV of 1961. S.355(1) reads:

(2.) Coming to the merits, the provision that is said to have been contravened by the accused is S.367. S.367 reads:

(3.) On receipt of the summons from the Commissioner, the petitioner sent a reply stating that the action of the Commissioner in trying to record a statement from him is not legally permissible, that it is done with some ulterior motive and that if the Municipal Council so requires, he is always prepared to appear. Normally on receipt of the reply, the Commissioner ought to have been satisfied that the appeal had really been sent by the petitioner for which purpose alone he wanted to summon the petitioner. On receipt of the reply, one would have normally expected him to take the orders of the appellate authority, namely, the Municipal Council but probably chagrined at the attitude of the petitioner he hastily ordered an unnecessary prosecution.