RANNI PAZHAVANGADI PANCHAYAT Vs. NARAYANAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred, with the leave of this Court under S.417(3), Criminal P.C. against an order of acquittal made by the learned Second Class Magistrate of Pathanamthitta. In CC No. 454 of 1956 the Pazhavangadi (Ranni) Panchayat launched a prosecution against the respondent herein, who is the owner and manager of the Mahalekshmi Talkies which was run within the jurisdiction of the said Panchayat for alleged contravention of S.5 of the Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1951 (Act VI of 1951) read with S.10 thereof as also of R.5, 11 and 12 of the Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Rules, 1951. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused (the respondent) on the ground that the 'bye law (Ext. A) passed by the Panchayat is not in accordance with the mandatory provision laid down under S.12 of the Act'. To us it would appear that Ext. A is no bye law as contemplated by S.12 but only a decision taken under S.3 of the Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act with the imprimatur of the Government super added as per R.118 of the Panchayat Rules, 1951 and not a bye law as contemplated by S.12. So long as there is no proof in the case that the Panchayat concerned had made bye laws under S.12 of the Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, we cannot find our way to interfere with the order of acquittal. As pointed out in Bhaskara Reddiar v. Alleppy Municipality, 1955 KLT 912 , S.12 contains a mandatory provision and until the condition laid down in the section is fulfilled a Local Authority cannot levy entertainment tax under S.3 of the Act. A later decision of the Travancore - Cochin High Court of which a note appears in 1956 KLT Short Notes p 22 only shows that where a Local Authority has made the bye laws as required by S.12 even if those bye laws do not cover all the matters referred in the said section rules issued by the Government under S.11 can be made to supplement the same. In other words that decision only states that where a particular matter is covered by a rule under S.11 the Local Authority is not bound to repeat that as a bye law under S.12. The later decision is no authority for the position that when bye laws have not been made under S.12 the Local Authority can levy entertainment tar by recourse to the rules framed by the Government under S.11. The bye laws would seem to be the pre-requisite to enforce the decision under S.3.

(2.) Mr. K. C. John appearing for the appellant stated that apart from Ext. A the Panchayat concerned has made bye laws under S.12 and requested that the case should be remanded to let in evidence regarding the same. We do not find any reason whatever to extend any such indulgence to the party who, before the lower court, was content with Ext. A and did not seek to produce anything else in the shape of bye laws. If the Panchayat had made bye laws the unsuccessful termination of the prosecution will not prevent that body from seeking to enforce their claim against the respondent by other means or successfully prosecuting other delinquents. In view of the non production in the case of any bye law under S.12 the order of acquittal passed by the lower court has to be confirmed. We order accordingly and dismiss the appeal.