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 the complaint may be made at any time within twelve months from the commencement of the offence. In this case the complaint was filed within twelve months from the date of the application of the petitioner and in the application he has stated that he was going to construct a building and prayed for a licence. There is this evidence to show that the offence was committed within twelve months prior to the date on which the complaint was filed.
2. It is next stated that the remedy of the municipality was under Section 216 and that he ought not to have been prosecuted under Section 317. Under Section 199, the construction or re-construction of a building shall not be begun unless and until the executive authority has granted permission for the execution of the work. Under Section 317 if the construction or reconstruction of any building is commenced without the permission of the executive authority the owner of the building shall be liable on conviction to a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees etc. In this case the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of Section 199 and therefore was liable to be prosecuted under Section 317. It is true under Section 216 if a building is completed the municipality can ask him to demolish it. But this is only an additional remedy and the fact that the municipality has a remedy under Section 216 cannot disentitle them in taking proceedings under Section 317. The petitions are accordingly dismissed.