EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these appeals involve identical questions, they were beard together. In all the cases accused were acquitted mainly on two grounds namely (1) want of notice under R.10 of the Professional Tax Rules, and (2) sufficient steps were not taken before launching prosecution. Crl. A. No. 9/87 is from the decision in S. T. No. 1567/86 before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Perintalmanna. In that case, the additional ground relied on by the magistrate is that prosecution is bad for the further reason that wilful omission is not there.

(2.) In the decision in 1985 KLT 95 it was held that R.10 of the Professional Tax Rules is mandatory. It was so held in that decision only because the Panchayat did not dispute that fact. But in the common judgment of this Court in Crl. A Nos. 578. 586 and 587/86, it was held that individual notice under R.10 is necessary only in the case of Companies or persons and that what is applicable in the case of employees is only R.15 which requires that notice may be issued to the employer or the head or Secretary or Manager of any public or private office, hotel, etc. to furnish the details of the employees and their salary or income.

(3.) All these are cases involving employees of different offices. Notices were issued under R.15 (2) to all the heads of the offices and statements were obtained from them. Assessments were only on the basis of those statements. Therefore, on compliance of R.10 cannot be taken as a defect in the prosecution. The Magistrates definitely went wrong in that respect.