EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY PUNALUR PANCHAYAT Vs. KUMARAN VAIDYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the same in all these cases. The respondents are Ayurvedic physicians having their places of business within the Punalur Panchayat. The Executive Authority of that Panchayat filed complaints against the respondents before the Sub Magistrate's Court, Punalur, under S.96 and 131 of the Panchayats Act, read with R.7 of the Licensing of Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories Rules, 1963 and bye law 4 of the bye laws framed under R.7, in that they have manufactured and stored 'arishtaras' and 'asavams' in their Vydyasalas without taking the necessary licence from the Executive Authority of the Panchayat for the financial years 1965-66 and 1966-1967. By the complaints, the licence fees and the notice charges were also sought to be recovered.

(2.) The accused raised two contentions, viz., that the Panchayat has not framed and published the bye laws in accordance with law and that the complaints were barred by time. On the first point, the learned Magistrate held that the bye laws were framed and published as required by law, but on the second question, he found that the complaints were barred by time on the ground that they have not been filed within three months of the commission of the offences as required by S.119 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, and acquitted the accused. S.119 reads as follows:

(3.) It was argued on behalf of the accused that even assuming that the accused did not take out the licence, no offence has been committed, the argument being that 'arishtamas' and 'asavams' are not chemical preparations as specified in Schedule I to the rules referred to above. S, 96 of the Act reads as follows: