Kerala High Court
Secretary vs Secretary on 26 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942
CRL.A.No.1815 OF 2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CR.R.P.NO. 40/2001 DATED 19.04.2005
OF COURT OF SESSIONS, THALASSERY
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Crl.L.P. 327/2006 DATED 17-07-2006
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2001 IN STC NO.324/1996 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, TALIPARAMBA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
SECRETARY,
KURUMATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KURUMATHUR P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED & STATE:
1 PALAKKUNNEL MADHURI,
D/O. P.ANTONY JOSEPH, POOVAM P.O.,
KANHIRANGAD, TALIPARAMBA TALUK.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
SMT. SYLAJA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.1815 OF 2006
2
JUDGMENT
The appeal is filed by the Secretary of
Kurumathur Grama Panchayath challenging the order
dated 19.04.2005 of the Court of Session,
Thalassery in Crl.Revision Petition No.40/2001.
The appellant had filed a complaint, which was
numbered as S.T.C.No.324/1996 before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery, against
the 1st respondent, alleging that the 1st respondent
has committed default in remitting the building
tax and is therefore liable to be prosecuted under
Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994
read with Rule 27 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
(Taxation and Appeal) Rules 1996.
2. The learned Magistrate found that the
accused was guilty of the offence and directed to
pay a fine of ₹25/- and in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for one week and to pay the
arrears to tax with the cost of prosecution.
CRL.A.No.1815 OF 2006
3. The 1st respondent filed Crl.Revision
Petition against the order of the Magistrate and
the Sessions Court has set aside the order of the
Magistrate by order dated 19.04.2005, which is
impugned in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent.
5. The building tax in question was payable
for the period 1995-96. According to the 1st
respondent, she had sold the property on
24.06.1995 as per Ext.D3 registration copy of the
assignment deed. It can be seen from Exts.D4 & D2
that the building tax was paid for the period
1997-98 & 1999-2000. The trial court found the
accused guilty, for the reason that she did not
inform about the transfer of the property as
required in Rule 16(4) of the Building Tax Rules,
1963. It is pointed out by the 1 st respondent that
CRL.A.No.1815 OF 2006
the Panchayat was informed about the transfer as
per notice in Form No.59, which had been sent to
the Panchayat by the 1st respondent and two others
through the Sub Registrar, Taliparamba and as such
there could have been no demand for tax from the
1st respondent.
6. By a well considered order, the Sessions
Court, Thalassery has allowed the Crl.Revision
Petition and set aside the conviction and sentence
ordered by the trial court. The Sessions Court
found that the Panchayat had received intimation
regarding the transfer even before launching the
prosecution. On going through the evidence on
record and the order of the Sessions Court, I find
no legal reason to differ from the view expressed
by the Sessions Court that the procedure adopted
by the Panchayat for initiating prosecution is
illegal and faulty.
Crl.Appeal is hence dismissed confirming the
CRL.A.No.1815 OF 2006
order dated 19.04.2005 of the Court of Sessions,
Thalassery in Crl. Revision Petition No.40/2001.
In the circumstances of the case, there will be no
order as to costs.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI, JUDGE
Pn
