Ranni Pazhayangadi Panchayat vs Damodaran Nayar

Koshi C, J

This is an appeal preferred, with the leave of this court u/s 417 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, against an order of acquittal made by the learned Second Class Magistrate of Pathanamthitta. In C.C. No. 454 of 1956 the Pazhavangadi (Ranni) Panchayat launched a prosecution against the respondent herein, who is the owner and manager of the Mahalekshmi Talkies which was run within the jurisdiction of the said Panchayat for alleged contravention of Section 5 of the Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1951 (VI of 1951) read with Section 10 there of as also of rules 5, 11 and 12 of the Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Rules, 1951. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused (the respondent) on the ground that the "bye-law (Ext. A) passed by the Panchayat is not in accordance with the mandatory provision laid down u/s 12 of the Act." To us it would appear that Ext. A is no bye-law as contemplated by Section 12 but only a decision taken u/s 3 of the Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act with the imprimatur of the Government super-added as per Rule 118 of the Panchayat Rules 1951 and not a bye-law as contemplated by Section 12. So long as there is no proof in the case that the Panchayat concerned had made bye-laws,under Section 12 of the Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, we cannot find our way to interfere with the order of acquittal. As pointed out in 1955 KLT 912 Sections 12 contains a mandatory provision and until the condition laid down in the Section is fulfilled a Local Authority cannot levy entertainment tax u/s 3 of the Act. The latter decision of the Travancore-Cochin High Court of which a note appears in 1956 KLT Short Notes p. 22 only shows that where a Local Authority has made the bye-laws as required by section 12 even if those bye-laws do not cover all the matters referred in the said Section rules issued by the, Government u/s 11 can be made to supplement the same. In other words that decision only states that where a particular matter is covered by a rule u/s 11 the Local Authority is not bound to repeat that as a bye-law u/s l2. The latter decision is no authority for the position that when bye-laws have not been made u/s 12 the Local Authority can levy entertainment tax by recourse to the rules framed by the Government u/s 11. The bye-laws would seem to be the prerequisite to enforce the decision under Section. Mr. K.C. John appearing for the appellant stated that apart from Ext. A the Panchayat concerned has made bye-laws u/s 12 and requested that the case should be remanded to let in evidence regarding the same. We do not find any reason whatever to extend any such indulgence to the party who, before the lower court, was content with Ext. A and did not seek to produce anything else in the shape of bye-laws. If the Panchayat had made bye-laws the unsuccessful termination of the prosecution will not prevent that body from seeking to enforce their claim against the respondent by other means or successfully prosecuting other delinquents. In view of the non-production in the case of any bye-law u/s 12 the order of acquittal passed by the lower court has to be confirmed. We order accordingly and dismiss the appeal.