N THIAGARAJAN Vs. NEYKARAPATTI TOWN PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order-Having failed before the trial Court to get his complaint quashed on a preliminary objection, the petitioner accused has come forward with this revision to this Court. The respondent Panchayat represented by its Executive Officer filed a complaint against the petitioner for non-payment of house tax, water tax etc, a mounting to a sum of Rs. 34,262.45 for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The petitioner was the lessee of a spinning mill and it was at that time the demands for house tax and water tax were raised. The demands were originally made by means of demand notices, dated 20th July, 1981. As the petitioner did not pay the tax amounts, a prosecution notice was issued on 24th April, 1982, and thereafter the complaint was filed. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection stating that limitation would run from the date of the earlier notices issued on 20th July, 1981, and since the complaint had not been filed within a period of three months from that date the prosecution was barred by time. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on section 166 of the Madras Panchayats Act which reads as follows:

(2.) Mr. Arunachalam, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the demand notices issued on 20th July, 1981 are themselves fina1 notices and since it is mentioned therein that if within a Period of fifteen days the demandsraised are not met, the properties would be distrained, it should be held that the period of limitation of three months mentioned in section 166 of the Panchayats Act should be construed from the date of issue of the demand notices and since the complaint had been filed only on 1st June, 1982, the Court below should have held that the complaint was barred by time. He further argued that the Panchayat is not entitled to issue a prosecution notice a fresh on 24th April, 1982, and as such the Panchayat cannot try to seek a fresh period of limitation of three months from the date of the prosecution notice.

(3.) The relevant provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder which require scrutiny are as under. Section, 160, which as already been extracted refers to prosecution. It is no doubt true that in this section, it is stated that the complaint should be made within three months of the commission of the offence. But what is of significance is that the period of limitation is subject to other provisions contained in the Act. This is made clear by the opening words of the section, viz., "Save asotherwise expressly provided in this Act". Bearing this in mind, if we look at under section 165 of the Act, we will find that a limitation period of six years is given for taking out distraint proceedings or for linga suit or for launching prosecution. The section reads as follows: