VELAYUTHAM PILLAI Vs. HEALTH INSPECTOR, NANGUNERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision Petitioner in this case is the sole accused in S.T.C. No. 1446 of 1985 on the file of learned judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nanguneri. Learned Trial Judge by his judgment dated 20 -11 -1986 found the accused guilty of having violated Section 111 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act and fined him under Section 181(1) of the said Act to pay a fine of Rs. 75/ -, in default to undergo two weeks' simple imprisonment. The accused challenged the above referred to judgment by filing an appeal in C.A. No. 51 of 1986 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Thirunelveli which was dismissed on 5 -3 -1987. Hence, this revision before this Court.

(2.) A few facts are necessary to be set out hereunder to decide the issues that arise. The complainant is the Health Inspector of Nanguneri Panchayat. The Revision Petitioner admits that he is running a rice mill. As per the complaint made to the lower Court the revision Petitioner had to pay the licence fee by way of renewal for running the rice mill on or before 28 -2 -1984 for the licence year 1984 -85. Since he did not pay the licence fee, a notice dated 27 -4 -1985 was issued to him by the complainant and thereafter a complaint was lodged, since the accused did not respond to the notice above referred to. The money due by the accused by way of licence fee together with the penalty comes to Rs. 206 -25 made up of Rs. 165/ - as licence fee and a sum of Rs. 41 -25 as penalty. As already stated, since the accused did not pay the licence fee even after demand, the complainant, after obtaining the necessary authorisation sanction to prosecute, from the appropriate authority, filed the private complaint against the accused.

(3.) BESIDES the above point, the accused had also raised an issue namely, that the complaint lodged by the Respondent was barred by limitation. It is not clear whether this issue was raised before the trial Magistrate or not. However, this issue came to be decided by the Appellant Judge who held that the complaint is not barred by limitation.