The petitioner herein are the accused in S.T.Case No.371 of 1991 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sulthanbathery for the offence punishable under section 74 of the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1960 read with Rule 26 of the Kerala Panchayats (Taxation and Appeal) Rules, 1963. By the judgment dated 30th May 1994, the trial court found that all the petitioners/accused are guilty and accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.45,000/-(Rs.15,000/- each) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It is also ordered that the fine amount shall be paid to the Panchayat. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioners herein preferred Crl. Appeal No.37/1994 before the Sessions Court, Wayanad. By judgment dated 31st August 2000, the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal confirming and sustaining the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial court. The above judgment is challenged in this Crl. Revision Petition.

2. The allegation against the accused is that they willfully omitted to pay the building tax due to the complainant viz., the Sulthanbathery Grama Panchayat for the buildings bearing Nos.3/714, 3/715, 3/716 and 3/714 A to 3/716 L from 1987-88 to 1991-92 and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 read with Rule 26 of the Kerala Panchayats (Taxation and Appeal) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to for short as “Rules” only). On the said allegation, PW1 preferred the complaint, which was taken on file as S.T.No.371/91. During the course of trial, the accused appeared and they were given the prosecution records. The substances of the prosecution case had been read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty which resulted in further trial of the case during which PWs 1 to 3 were examined; Exts.P1 to P3(b) were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, except Ext.D1, there is no other evidence either documentary or oral. The trial court framed two issues for consideration as to (1) whether the accused have willfully omitted to pay building tax Rs.38834/- due to the Panchayat as alleged by the prosecution; and (2) what should be the proper sentence on conviction.

3. After an elaborate consideration of the evidence and materials on record, the trial court came into the finding that the accused have committed the offence charged against them and accordingly they were convicted for the above offence and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.45,000/-(Rs.15,000/- each), and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. It is also ordered separately that the fine amount, if realized, shall be paid to the Panchayat. In appeal, the Sessions Court, after evaluating the evidence on record, came into the conclusion that the petitioners/accused have committed the offence charged against them. Thus the appellate court by its judgment, sustained the conviction and affirmed the sentence. Pressing the various legal and factual grounds, the petitioners assailed the concurrent findings of the courts below in this Crl. Revision Petition.

4. I have heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioners as well as the counsel for the respondent.

5. The challenge against the conviction and sentence are mainly on two grounds. According to the revision petitioners and their counsel, in the light of the decision reported in Pankajbhai N. Patel v. State of Gujarat (2001 (1) KLT 517) (SC), the trial court has no jurisdiction to impose fine exceeding Rs.5000/- and especially in the light of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Magistrate as per section 29 of the Cr.P.C., the sentences ordered by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court is not sustainable. On behalf of the petitioners, the other contention advanced by the learned counsel is that no proper notice was served on all the accused and the distraint warrant was not executed by the