The essential requirement of a notification under the Kerala Panchayats Act must be proved for the prosecution to be sustainable.

Headnote:
Panchayats Act - Installation of Machinery without License - S.96, S.97, S.119, S.132 - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of S.96, S.97, S.119, and S.132 of the Kerala Panchayats Act. It emphasized the requirement of a notification for the prosecution, the bar of limitation, and the need for proof of the notification. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal due to the lack of proof of the required notification.
Fact of the Case:

The accused was charged with installing and working a 5 horse-power motor without a license. The prosecution failed to prove the time of the commencement of the offense and the purpose of the installation.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential requirement of a notification as required by the Kerala Panchayats Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Issues: The issues included the lack of proof of the notification, the bar of limitation, and the requirement of mens rea for the offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The essential requirement of a notification under the Kerala Panchayats Act must be proved for the prosecution to be sustainable.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed due to the lack of proof of the required notification.

Judgment :-

1. This appeal is against the order of acquittal passed by the II nd Class Magistrate, Cannanore. The complaint was by the Executive Officer, Elayavoor Panchayat, under S.96 and 97 read with S.119 of the Kerala Panchayats Act and the rules made thereunder. S.96 and 97 of the Act read as follows:

"96. Purpose for which places may not be used without a licence. The Panchayat may with the previous approval of the Director notify that no place in the Panchayat area shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the rules made in this behalf being purposes which in the opinion of Government, are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property, without a licence issued by the executive authority and except in accordance with the conditions specified in

such licence:

Provided that no such notification shall take effect until the expiry of sixty days from the date of its publication.

97. Permission for the construction of factories and the installation of machinery. No person shall, without the permission of the Panchayat and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such permission

(a) construct or establish any factory, workshop or work-place in which it is proposed to employ steam power, water power or other mechanical power or electrical power; or

(b) install in any premises any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by any power as aforesaid, not being machinery or manufacturing plant exempted by the rules."

S. 119 provides that no person shall be tried for an offence under the Act, or Rules except on complaint made by the Police or Executive Authority etc. within three months of the commission of the offence. The proviso to the section reads:

Provided that failure to take out a licence or obtain permission under this Act shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be a continuing offence until the expiration of the period, if any, for which the licence or permission is required and if no period is specified, complaint may be made at any time within twelve months from the commencement of the offence."

S. 132 of the Act provides that contravention of any of the provisions of the Act specified in the 1st and 2nd columns of Schedule III shall be punishable with fine, which may extend to the amount mentioned in the 4th column of the said schedule. In Schedule III for contravention of S.96, a fine of Rs. 100/- is indicated and for contravention of S.97, a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

2. The charge against the accused in the present case was that he installed and worked a 5 horse-power motor in a building within the limits of the Panchayat, without a licence in spite of being called upon to take out one. The facts are that the premises of the accused were inspected on 9121964 and it was found that a 5 horse-power motor had been installed and was being worked. Application for a licence was prepared by the accused on 9121964 and was antedated as on 8121964, and was received in the office of the Panchayat on 10-12-1964. It is seen from the evidence that the said application for license (Ex. P-4) was made by the accused at the direction of P. W.1, the Executive Officer of the Panchayat.

3. The Magistrate acquitted accused mainly on the ground that there had been no notification issued by the Panchayat as required by S.96 of the Act. He also found that the prosecution was barred by time under S.119, the exact time of the commencement of the offence, which it was the duty of the prosecution to prove, not having been proved. It was also found that the burden was on the prosecution to establish that the accused installed the electric motor not for any purpose exempted under the Rules made under S.97 of the Act. (The Kerala Panchayats (Licensing of Dangerous Trades & Factories) Rules, 1963). It was conceded by the counsel appearing for the accused, that the prosecution need not prove that the installation was of any machinery or manufacturing plant not exempted by the Rules. We are therefore concerned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document