JUDGMENT Anna Chandy, J. 1. This appeal is from the judgment of the Corporation First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum in C. C. 483/58 acquitting the accused who stood charged with an offence punishable under sections 283 and 384 read with section 375 of the Trivandrum City Municipal Act, IV of 1116. 2. The prosecution case is as follows:- The accused was the manager and licensee of the Delight Restaurant Stall housed in building T. C. No. 467 of the Chenthitta Ward situated in the Central Railway Station premises. He failed to take out a licence from the City Corporation for conducting the restaurant for the year 1957-58. The Corporation issued Ext. P1 notice warning him that if he did not pay up the fee he would be prosecuted. The accused did not pay the fee as demanded and the Corporation prosecuted him under Act IV of 1116. 3. At the trial the accused put forward two pleas, (1) that the premises belonged to the Union Government and hence under section 282 of Act IV of 1116 it is exempt from the operation of the Act and (2) the levy is not in law a licence fee and hence it is illegal to collect it. The learned Magistrate found the first contention unacceptable, but acquitted the accused on the ground that the fee levied was not a licence fee and was designed only to raise the revenue of the Corporation. 4. The Corporation has taken the matter in appeal before us. Though the accused has personally accepted notice of the appeal he did not care to put in appearance. The State was represented by the Public Prosecutor who supported the appellant and urged for the reversal of the order of acquittal. 5. The main point arising for determination is whether the levy in this case by the Corporation is a licence and the amount charged is commensurate with the services rendered. P.W. 2 is the Overseer-in-charge of the Chenthitta division where the hotel building T.C. 467 is situated. He has given evidence that the Corporation is in charge of the sanitation of the premises of the restaurant and the sanitation is being actually looked after by them. He further swears that he has inspected the restaurant on several occasions and filed reports to that effect. P.W. 3 is the Sanitary Inspector-in-charge of the division. He has given evidence that the Corporation is in charge of the sanitation of the premises of the restaurant and the sanitation is being actually looked after by them. He further swears that he has inspected the restaurant on several occasions and filed reports to that effect. P.W. 3 is the Sanitary Inspector-in-charge of the division. He has given evidence that the sanitation of the railway station premises where the restaurant is situated is being attended to by the Corporation and that he has also inspected the restaurant several times. It is admitted by D.W. 2 who is an employee of the restaurant that the refuse from the restaurant which is dumped in front of the premises is removed by the Corporation in lorries. However the learned Magistrate refused to act on the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W. 3 on the ground that there was no record about their visits to the restaurant. It is not clear what records they are supposed to keep. P.W. 2 has stated that he has issued inspection reports. We think that the learned Magistrate was not right in discarding the evidence of two responsible officers of the Corporation for no valid reasons. It is seen that the fee claimed is Rs. 75 for a period of one year. Even if the service rendered is only the removal of the refuse, the fee levied which works out at the rate of about Rs. 6 per month cannot in any sense be considered unreasonable. It is accepted that a licence fee unlike a tax is not levied for the general purpose of augmenting revenues, but is only to defray the expenditure incurred in rendering certain services to the licensee and that the fee charged must be commensurate to the services rendered. The fee charged in this case meets both the above requirements. It is also not disputed that the same fee was charged for the previous year and the accused has paid it up. In the face of these facts the learned Magistrate was clearly wrong in holding that the levy is not a licence fee. In view of the above finding it is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to consider the merits of the ground taken in appeal that the accused is not entitled to challenge the reasonableness of the licence fee or its validity in a criminal prosecution. In view of the above finding it is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to consider the merits of the ground taken in appeal that the accused is not entitled to challenge the reasonableness of the licence fee or its validity in a criminal prosecution. In the result the order of acquittal is set aside and the accused is convicted under sections 283 and 375 of Act IV of 1116 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. It is also directed under section 384 that a sum of Rs. 75 will be summarily recovered from the accused towards the licence fee chargeable for the year 1957-58 and be paid over to the Corporation.