VENKATACHALAM Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH revisions were heard in full on 31. 7. 2007 itself. Only on the representation made by the learned counsel Mr. Karthick appearing for the revision petitioners, the matter was adjourend from 31. 7. 2007 to 03. 08. 2007. Thereafter, it was further adjourned to 7. 8. 2007 and from 7. 8. 2007 to today ie. 8. 8. 2007. Today there is no representation for the revision petitioners. Since I have heard both the counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the counsel for the respondent in full, my verdict is as follows:

(2.) THE order passed in C. A. No. 8 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, modifying the order of the trial Court in STC. NO. 284 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirupathur, by sentencing a fine of Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs. 6,000/- under Rules 30 (2) and 36 (1) (a) and (b) of the (IVth Schedule) Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, and directing that out of the fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- a sum of Rs. 4,500/- to be paid compensation to the complainant-Municipality under Section 357 of Cr. P. C. , is under challenge before this Court in Cr. R. C. No. 801 of 2005.

(3.) 3 (A)THE short facts of the case of the complaint is that the accused in STC. No. 284 of 2002 is the mother of the accused in STC. No. 286 of 2002, a discharged army man. The accused in STC. No. 284 of 2002 has failed to pay the property tax for the assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02 amounting to Rs. 4,518/-, inspite of several demands and attachment notice. Hence, the complainant, the Executive Officer of the Nattarampalli Municipality, had preferred the complaint against the accused (in STC. No. 286 of 2002)under Rule 30 (2) and 36 (1) (a) and (b) of the (IVth Schedule) Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. A similar complaint was preferred by the same Executive Officer under Rule 30 (2) and 36 (1) (a) and (b) of the (IVth Schedule) Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, against the son of the accused in STC. No. 284 of 2002, who is the accused in STC. NO. 286/2002, a discharged army man, for the the arrears of property tax for the assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02 amounting to Rs. 4,338/-, inspite of several demand notices and finally an attachment notice. 3 (b) The learned trial judge had convicted and sentenced the accused under Rule 30 (2) and 30 (1) (a) and (b) of the (IVth Schedule) Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and sentenced the accused in both the cases to pay a fine of Rs. 6,000/- and directed that a sum of Rs. 4,500/- is to be paid towards compensation in STC. No. 286 of 2002 to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 4,600/- is to be paid towards compensation in STC. No. 284 of 2002 to the complainant out of the fine amount. Against the findings of the learned trial Judge the accused in STC. No. 284 of 2002 had preferred an appeal in C. A. No. 8 of 2004 and the accused in STC. No. 286 of 2002 had preferred an appeal in C. A. No. 43 of 2004 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Vellore. The learned first appellant Judge has dismissed both the appeals, which necessitated the accused in STC. No. 286/2002 to prefer Crl. R. C. No. 800 of 2005 and the accused in STC. No. 284 of 2002 to prefer. Crl. R. C. No. 801 of 2005 before this Court.