The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of understanding and applying the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act, particularly in relation to the authority to conduct prosecution, observance of formalities, sufficiency of evidence, and the limitation period for prosecution.

1. Complainant is the appellant. Appeal is against the acquittal of the respondent by the judicial 2nd Class Magistrate, Shertallai in C.C. No.13 of 1984.

2. Prosecution is under R.31 (1) and 32 (2) of Schedule II of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 read with S.386 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. The Sherthallai Municipality auctioned the right to collect fees from the buses coming to the Municipal Bus Stand, Sherthallai for the year 1982-83. The respondent was the successful bidder for an amount of Rs. 14,100/-. The auction was confirmed in his name and be executed Ext. P2 agreement 1-4-1982 in favour of the Commissioner. On the basis of that agreement, be paid the one-fourth amount of Rs. 3,525/-. Balance three-fourth amounting to Rs. 10,575/-bad to be paid under the terms of Ext. P2 in eight monthly instalments of Rs. 1,322/-. The respondent paid five instalments alone. Thereafter, be defaulted. Balance due from him is Rs. 3,965/-. A registered notice was issued on 11-7-1983. Thereafter, a demand notice was issued on 5-8-1983, since the amount was not paid. In the demand notice, be was asked to pay the amount within fifteen days. He did not pay. Therefore, distraint warrant was issued on 3-10-1983. Distraint could not be effected because he had no property within the limits of the Municipality. It was on these allegations that the complaint was filed by the Revenue Inspector stating that he was authorised by the Municipal Commissioner to prosecute the respondent.

3. Appellant was examined as Pw.1 and the present Municipal Commissioner was examined as pw. 2. Exts. P1, P1 (a), P1 (b) and P2 are the documents proved. No defence witness was examined and no defence document was also produced and proved.

4. The learned Magistrate framed five points for consideration. On the first point, whether Ext. P2 is a genuine document or not, he entered the finding that it is genuine. On the second point whether the appellant was authorised to launch the prosecution, the finding of the Magistrate was against the prosecution. The third point related to the question whether all the formaltics to be observed before launching the prosecution were actually observed. That was also found against the prosecution. The fourth point is whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to establish the offence. That was also found in favour of the defence. Ultimately, on Point No. 5 the Magistrate found that no offence is established. The respondent was, therefore, acquitted.

5. After having heard both sides and perused the oral and documentary evidence, I am satisfied that the Magistrate was not justified in any of his findings. He has misunderstood the provisions of law as well as the evidence on record. These wrong understandings have seriously affected bis decision of the case.

6. Ext. P1 is the distraint warrant issued against the respondent. On the back of the distraint warrant, the Municipal Commissioner under his signature, authorised the appellant to launch and conduct the prosecution against the respondent. It was under the authority of that authorisation that the appellant filed the complaint. The authorisation is marked as Exhibit Pl(b). Ext. P1 (b) was rejected by the Magistrate for the sole reason that the previous Municipal Commissioner, who issued the authorisation, was not examined as a witness to prove the same. The appellant, as pw.1, has spoken to the fact that the authorisation was issued by the Commissioner himself. When the respondent raised a contention before Court that the evidence of pw.1 is not sufficient to prove the authorisation, be filed a petition for summoning and examining the Commissioner to prove the authorisation and his signature, That prayer was opposed by the respondent and the Magistrate has rejected that application. It was after having done so that the Magistrate rejected Ext. P1 (b) and blamed the appellant for not proving the same by examination of the Commissioner.

7. Courts are existing for dispen