Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was convicted by the Honorary First Class Magistrate, Badagara, under S.115 (1) of the Madras Village Panchayaths Act (X of 1950) for curing fish in the Government Fish Curing Yard, Quilandy, during the year 1955-1956 without obtaining a licence from the Executive Officer, Quilandy Panchayath Board. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days. He was also ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 6-4-0 as licence fee and Rs. 5/-towards costs of the prosecution. 2. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that licence from the Panchayath Board is unnecessary for curing fish in the Government Fish Curing Yard. 3. S.91 of the Act provides that a Panchayath may with the previous approval of the prescribed authority notify that no place within the limits of the village shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the rules made in that behalf, being purposes which in the opinion of the Government are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human health or property, without a licence issued by the executive authority and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such licence. The Government of Madras have by a notification published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 27th March 1950 notified that with the previous approval of the Regional Inspector concerned a Panchayat may notify, that no place within its limits shall be used for any of the purposes mentioned therein, without a licence under S.91 of the Act. Item (c) in the notification is "Storing or otherwise dealing with offal, blood bones, hides, fish or skins." In accordance with S.91 and the notification referred to the Quilandy Panchayath Board published a notification Ext. P-1 in the Malabar District Gazette dated 25th December 1953. Item f(ii) in the Notification is "Government Fish Curing Yards" and a licence fee of Rs. 5/- is prescribed. The case for the prosecution is that although the petitioner was curing fish in the Government Fish Yard, he was liable to take out a licence under f (ii) of Ext. P-1 on payment of the prescribed fee. This case was upheld by the learned Magistrate and the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above. 4. 5/- is prescribed. The case for the prosecution is that although the petitioner was curing fish in the Government Fish Yard, he was liable to take out a licence under f (ii) of Ext. P-1 on payment of the prescribed fee. This case was upheld by the learned Magistrate and the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above. 4. The question for decision is whether curing fish in the Government Fish Yard is a "purpose" for which a licence from the Panchayath Board is necessary. The learned Magistrate was of opinion that curing fish is "dealing with fish" and is a purpose for which a licence is required under clause f (ii) of Ext. P-1. The learned Magistrate further held that item f (ii) in Ext. P-1 relates to "dealing with fish in a Government Fish Curing Yard. This assumption is incorrect because item f (ii) reads "Government Fish Curing Yards" and there is no specific reference in item f (ii) to curing fish or dealing with fish. Curing fish is the process by which fresh fish is salted and dried. It is in evidence that the owners of the sheds in the fish curing yards would bring fresh fish inside the yard which would then be weighed by the Officer-in-charge of the yard who would thereafter issue the requisite quantity of salt for curing the same. When the process of curing is over the fish is weighed again and allowed to be taken out of the yard. This is a process for which specific provision is not made in the notification. Pw-1 who initiated the prosecution stated in cross-examination "Ex. P-1 does not expressly state, that fish curing is liable to be assessed." It cannot be that the Panchayath Board was unaware of the process of curing fish because item f (ii) in Ext. P-1 refers to "Government Fish Curing Yards." It is admitted by the prosecution that before the year 1950, the curing yard was assessed and that a sum of Rs. 5/- was collected from the Assistant Director of Fisheries as licence fee. This was however ordered to be refunded later. P-1 refers to "Government Fish Curing Yards." It is admitted by the prosecution that before the year 1950, the curing yard was assessed and that a sum of Rs. 5/- was collected from the Assistant Director of Fisheries as licence fee. This was however ordered to be refunded later. S.97 of the Act provides that nothing in the Act or in any rule, bye-law or regulation made under the Act should be construed as requiring, taking out any licence or the obtaining of any permission in respect of any place in the occupation or under the control of the Central or the State Government or of a Market Committee. It is not clear how in view of this statutory provision the Panchayath Board could include item f (ii) as a purpose for which licence is necessary. Even assuming that item f (ii) is valid, it only means that the licence fee prescribed for the Government Fish Curing Yard is Rs. 5/- and that each one of the 76 owners of the sheds in the yard is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5/- as licence fee. We may in this connection refer to part II of the Madras Fisheries Manual which relates to fish curing yards. In note No. 3 to Para.3 of Chapter II, it is stated "Fish Curers will also in all cases be exempted from payment of Municipal or Local Boards fees or assessment on yards and on building in yards which will be paid by the Government." 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent brought to our notice several decisions of the Madras High Court under S.244 of the Madras District Municipalities Act which is a provision analogous to S.97 of the Village Pachayaths Act. These are relied on in support of the argument that the exemption provided by S.97 can apply only if the activity is carried on by the Government and not by a lessee-or licencee of the Government. These decisions are of no use in this case since the decision must depend on whether there is a specific provision in Ext. P-1 which requires that a licence for curing fish in the Government Fish Curing Yard should be taken. In the absence of such a provision in Ext. P-1 it cannot be said that the petitioner was liable to take a licence from the Panchayath Board. 6. P-1 which requires that a licence for curing fish in the Government Fish Curing Yard should be taken. In the absence of such a provision in Ext. P-1 it cannot be said that the petitioner was liable to take a licence from the Panchayath Board. 6. It appears from the judgment of the Court below that the learned Magistrate was of the view that the accused was prosecuted for "dealing with fish, i. e. for salting, drying and storing fish in shed No. 76 in the Government Fish Curing Yard at Quilandy. Item (c) in Ext. P-1 makes specific provision for "storing or other dealing with fish" and a licence fee of Rs. 3/- is prescribed for the same. Pw-1 has stated in chief examination that this provision in Ext. P-1 relates only to persons who cure and store fish outside the Government Fish Curing Yard. The question whether the petitioner should have taken a licence under item (c) of Ext. P-1 therefore does not arise. The prosecution was thus only for curing fish in the Government Fish Curing Yard without taking a licence as per item f (ii). Before insisting on taking a licence for curing fish in the Government Fish Curing Yard, the Panchayath must make a specific provision in that behalf and until that is done it cannot be held that an offence under S.115 (1) of the Act has been committed. 7. In view of the above conclusions the conviction must be quashed and the petitioner acquitted of the charge. The Criminal Revision Petition is therefore allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside. The fine and licence fee, if realised will be refunded to the petitioner. Allowed.