Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. In all these three petitions the petitioner is the same and he has been prosecuted for having failed to obtain a licence for effecting some additions to three of his buildings and each of these revision petitions relates to One such building. The points urged for the petitioner in all the three petitions are the same. The first point is that he was prosecuted long after the time fixed by the Act for launching a prosecution. The complaint against the petitioner was that he made additions to three of his buildings within the municipal limits of Palghat without a licence. He applied for a licence on 20th April 1942, and Ex. A is an endorsement on his application. In that application it is stated that he proposed to make certain constructions to certain buildings. They were completed according to Exs. G and F on 25th May 1942. The prosecution was launched on 21st December 1942. Under the proviso to Section 347, District Municipalities Act in case of prosecution for failure to take out a licence the failure should be considered to< have taken place at the expiry of the period for which the licence is required and in other cases where no period is prescribed t