EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ATHANOOR TOWN PANCHAYAT Vs. KANDASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above said appeals raise one and the same question, though on facts, the deviations from one to other is very insignificant and hence a common judgment is pronounced.

(2.) OUT of the said appeals, C.A. No. 100/96, 104/96, 105/96, 108/96, 109/96, 110/96, 112/96, 113/96, 115/96, 117/96, 118/96 and 119/96, the Respondents are being represented by a counsel Mr. Rathina Asokan, but in so far as the other appeals are concerned, though the record reveal that notice has been served on the Respondents, there is no representation by the Respondents either in person or through an advocate. Hence, this Court appointed a counsel as Amicus Curiae and accordingly Mr. C.R. Malarvanan had been appointed as Amicus Curiae who readily accepted the same and appeared before this Court.

(3.) AN objection was taken by the Respondents who are the accused before the Court below that the prosecution was barred by limitation, since Section 166 of the Tamilnadu Panchayat Act stipulates that the prosecution shall be made within three months from the date of commission of the offence and hence the prosecution in all these cases are barred by limitation. The learned Magistrate accepted the said contention and acquitted the accused/Respondents solely on this ground. Against the said judgment, appeals have been preferred by the Executive Officer, Athanoor Town Panchayat, after obtaining leave from this Court.