SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Ker) 112

PADMANABHAN
EXECUTIVE OFFICER – Appellant
Versus
VELAYUDHAN NADAR – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Athiyannoor Panchayat represented by its Executive Officer filed a complaint before the judicial Second Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara against the respondent under the second proviso to S.74 of the Kerala Panchayat Act read with R.26 of the Taxation and Appeal Rules for non-payment of licence fee for a private market for the years 1971-72 to 1979-80. It was taken to file as S.T. No. 328 of 1983. The Magistrate accepted the pleas of the respondent that (i) the prosecution is barred by limitation; (ii) quid pro quo has not been established; and (iii) the provisions of the Panchayat Act and Rules were not complied with before launching prosecution, and acquitted him. Complainant has come up in appeal.

2. In accepting the plea of limitation, the Magistrate made certain wrong assumptions. Ext. 17 was considered to be demand notice under R.13 of the Taxation and Appeal Rules whereas it is only a bill under R.8 thereof. For no valid reason it was held to be not a genuine document. In fact it was issued only in continuation of Ext. P.12 bill for Rs. 8,476.66 from 1971-72 to 1978-79 which is an admitted document. Ext.P.17 covers only an additional amount of Rs. 1,095/- as lic













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top