PAVAYAMMAL AND ANR. Vs. THE DISTRICT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Salem District Board was entrusted with the management of a choultry and the property with which the choultry was endowed. On the ground that the petitioners had unauthorisedly occupied a portion of the property attached to the choultry, the District Board served them with a notice to vacate and then prosecuted them under Section 164(2) read with Section 207(1) of the Madras Local Boards Act on the ground that they had failed to vacate the land in contravention of the notice served on them. The petitioners were convicted on 11th March, 1944, but still did not vacate the property and some six months later, on 2nd September, 1944, the District Board prosecuted them under Section 207, Sub -section (2) of the Act. It appears that there is a civil suit pending between the District Board and the petitioners in regard to the title to the property in question but this suit was filed after the conviction in the first case, and an undertaking which the Board seems to have given not to evict the petitioners during the pendency of the suit was admittedly given after the accused had been convicted in the case out of which this petition arises. The civil proceedings are therefore not material.

(2.) SECTION 207, Sub -section (2) provides that, if a person after conviction continues to contravene the provision of the Act in respect of which he has been convicted or to neglect to comply with the direction or requisition, he shall on conviction be punished, for each day after the previous date of conviction during which he continues so to offend, with fine which may extend to the amount mentioned in the fourth column of the schedule. It is not disputed that the petitioners, after their conviction for the contravention of the notice requiring them to vacate, have continued in possession of the property. Section 223 of the Local Boards Act, however, provides that, no person shall be tried for any offence against the provisions of the Act unless complaint is made within three months of the commission of the offence.. in the present case the complaint was filed nearly six months after the conviction and so more than five months have elapsed, at any rate, from the commencement of the offence. The contention advanced for the petitioners is that the complaint against them is barred by limitation by virtue of the provisions of Section 223 of the Act. There is a proviso to Section 223 by virtue of which a different period of limitation is prescribed for complaints based on failure to take out a licence or obtain permission under the Act. Such failure is deemed to be a continuing offence,

(3.) I agree, therefore, with the view taken by the Magistrate that the complaint is not barred by limitation, although for different reasons. As far as the first accused is concerned, the petition is dismissed, and the Magistrate will dispose of the case against him in accordance with law. In the petition Criminal Revision Case No. 776 of 1944 against the conviction of both the accused in C.C. No. 2027 of 1943 I allowed the petition of the second accused on the ground that she was not in occupation of the property. That being so, the present complaint cannot be maintained as against her. As far as she is concerned her petition is allowed and she is discharged.