Skip to content


Rex S. Arthur, Profession Tax Inspector, Ramnad Taluq Board Vs. Appavu Velan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in108Ind.Cas.411
AppellantRex S. Arthur, Profession Tax Inspector, Ramnad Taluq Board
RespondentAppavu Velan
Excerpt:
madras local boards act (xiv of 1920), section 193, 223, proviso - omission to take out license--continuing offence--limitation for prosecution. - .....to take out license or obtain permission under the act such failure shall be deemed a continuing offence and prosecution for such offence could be commenced within three months of the expiry of the period during which the license, if granted, would ensure that is, within three months from the 31st march, 1927. the prosecution for failure to obtain license for the year 1926 was commenced on the 20th november, 1926, and it is within time. as regards the previous years the prosecution not having commenced within three months of the expiry of the period during which the offence is said to continue under the proviso the prosecution must fail. i, therefore, set aside the order of the sub-divisional magistrate so far as the acquittal of the respondent for not taking out a license for the year.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Devadoss, J.

1. This is an application by the Profession-tax Inspector, Ramnad Taluq Board to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate quashing the conviction of the respondent under Section 207 of the Madras Local Boards Act. The Sub Magistrate who heard the case convicted the respondent for not taking out a license as required by the Madras Local Boards Act and found him guilty under Section 207 and sentenced him to pay a fine. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate on appeal held that the complaint was lodged more than three months after the commission of the offence and, therefore, was barred under Section 222 of the Madras Local Boards Act. The offence complained of was the failure of the respondent to take out license for having a potter's kiln. His not taking out a license as required by Section 193, no doubt constitutes an offence under the Act. Section 207 is the penal section which provides for punishment. Section 222 has no application to the present case. That section applies generally to cases of prosecutions. Under Section 223 the failure to take out license or obtain permission under the Act shall be deemed a continuing offence until the expiration of that period, if any, for which the license or permission is required. The license to carry on an offensive trade is granted for one year, the official year. The respondent would have taken out licenses for the years during which he carried on his trade. The prosecution is for his not taking put licenses for the years 1923, 1921, 1925 and 1928; a regards the three years 1923, 1924, 1925, the prosecution was launched long after the period prescribed by Section 223. Under Section 223, 'no parson shall be tried for any offence against the provisions of the Act...unless complaint is made by the Police or the President of a Local Board or by the person expressly authorized in this behalf by the Local Board or its President, within three months of the commission of the offence,' and the proviso to Section 223 says that in the case of a failure to take out license or obtain permission under the Act such failure shall be deemed a continuing offence and prosecution for such offence could be commenced within three months of the expiry of the period during which the license, if granted, would ensure that is, within three months from the 31st March, 1927. The prosecution for failure to obtain license for the year 1926 was commenced on the 20th November, 1926, and it is within time. As regards the previous years the prosecution not having commenced within three months of the expiry of the period during which the offence is said to continue under the proviso the prosecution must fail. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate so far as the acquittal of the respondent for not taking out a license for the year commencing the 1st April, 1926, is concerned, direct him to re-try the appeal and dispose of it in the light of the remarks made above.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //