Executive Officer Aliparamba Panchayat and Others vs C. Mohammed and Others

S. Padmanabhan, J.—Since all these appeals involve identical questions, they were heard together. In all the cases accused were acquitted mainly on two grounds namely (1) want of notice under Rule 10 of the Professional Tax Rules and (2) sufficient steps were not taken before launching prosecution. Crl. A. No. 9/87 is from the decision in S. T. No. 1567/86 before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate Perintal manna. In that case, the additional ground relied, on by the magistrate is that prosecution is bad for the further reason that wilful omission is not there. In'' the decision in 1985 K. L. T. 95 it was held that Rule 10 of the Professional Tax Rules is mandatory. It was so held in that decision only because the Panchayat did not dispute that fact. But in the common judgment of this Court in Crl. A. Nos. 578,586 and 587/86, it was held that individual notice under Rule 10 is necessary only in the case of Companies or prisons and that what is applicable in the case of employees is only Rule'' IS which requires that notice may be'' issued to the employer or the head or Secretary or Manager of any public or private office, hotel, etc to furnish the details of the employees and their salary or income.

All these are cases involving employees of different offices. Notices were issued under Rule 15 (2) to all the heads of the offices and statements were obtained from them. Assessments were only on the basis of those statements. Therefore on-compliance of rule 10 cannot be taken as a defect in the prosecution. The Magistrates definitely went wrong in that respect.

As per Rule 13 of the Professional Tax Rules, the executive authority will have to serve demand notice on each of the assessee after completing the assessment. In all these cases, demand notices were issued but payments were not made. Therefore, steps were also taken for distrait of movables. Prosecution was launched only after those steps became ineffective There fore, acquittal on that ground also cannot stand

The respondent in Crl. A. No. 9/87 contended that he was assessed in another Panchayat and the payment was already made. As soon as that fact was brought to the notice of the Executive Officer, he reduced the demand and limited the claim to the difference between the payment made and the actual assessment. That amount was also not paid. Prosecution was launched only thereafter. The Magistrate was therefore not justified in acquitting the accused and ordering steps against the appellant u/s 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the appeals are therefore allowed and the acquittals are set aside In Criminal Appeal No. 9 of, 1987, the steps taken against the appellant u/s 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also quashed. All the cases are remanded for fresh decision on the merits in the light of what is stated above.