Judgment :- 1. The 24 accused persons in this case were prosecuted by the Panchayat Officer, Thodupuzha, for offences punishable under S.10 of the Travancore-Cochin Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, VI of 1951 and S.85 and 110 of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayat Act, 11 of 1950, the case against them being that a club called the Janatha Arts Club, Thodupuzha, conducted a drama on 5-9-1957 within the limits of the Panchayat admitting persons thereto for payment without complying with the requirements of S.5 of Act VI of 1951, and in disregard of a notice issued by the Panchayat Officer prohibiting the conduct of the drama because the entertainment tax due had not been paid. They have been acquitted of the charges and the complainant has appealed against the acquittal by leave granted under S.417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. It may seem surprising, but it is nevertheless true, that the prosecution completely lost sight of the elementary requirement of proving the accused's connection with the alleged offences. There is nothing whatsoever to show that the accused persons were in any way responsible for the conduct of the drama, and it follows that it has not been shown that they are the "proprietors" of the entertainment so as to make them liable under S.10 of the Act. It seems to be to have been taken for granted by the learned Magistrate that the accused persons were members of the executive committee and of anniversary celebration committee of club, and were in that capacity responsible for staging the drama, but learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to bring to my notice any evidence to that effect. 3. I also think the learned Magistrate was right in holding that this particular entertainment was exempt from payment of tax under S.7 of Act VI of 1951 though, to my mind, the exemption falls under clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of that section and not under clause (c) as held by the learned Magistrate. Admittedly the Janatha Arts Club is an institution not conducted or established for profit and I am prepared to assume unless there is evidence to the contrary that a drama, whatever might be its literary merit, is an entertainment provided for purposes which are at least partly cultural. Admittedly the Janatha Arts Club is an institution not conducted or established for profit and I am prepared to assume unless there is evidence to the contrary that a drama, whatever might be its literary merit, is an entertainment provided for purposes which are at least partly cultural. What is done with the collections made for admission has no bearing on the question whether the purpose of providing the entertainment is educational, cultural or scientific within the meaning of the section. It would therefore appear that no tax was leviable for this particular entertainment and, that being so, there can be no question of any breach of S.5 of the Act so as to make an offence under S.10. 4. I am moreover inclined to agree with the learned Magistrate that where there is a dispute, as there was in the present case, as to whether an entertainment is of the character referred to in Sub-section (1) of S.7 of the Act, the liability of the entertainment to tax cannot be postulated until the dispute has been referred to Government and its decision obtained. Sub-section (2) of S.7 makes such a reference obligatory and says that the decision of the Government shall be final. In this case it would appear that the Janatha Arts Club did contend that the entertainment was not liable to tax and did require the Panchayat to refer the dispute to Government under S.7(2). This the Panchayat declined to do, and that being so it cannot be said for certain that the entertainment is subject to entertainments tax. In this connection it is worth while observing that sub-section (1) of S.7 opens with the injunction that entertainments tax shall not be levied on payment for admission to any entertainment of the character described in that sub-section. It appears to follow that where there is a dispute in the matter, the liability to pay tax can be established only by the decision of the Government under Sub-section (2). It is however not necessary to go into this question at any length because, as I have shown, of the one essential requirements, namely, that the accused were the proprietors of the entertainment, there is no evidence whatsoever. 5. With regard to S.85 and 110 of Act 11 of 1950 not even learned counsel for the appellant pretends that any liability can conceivably arise under these section. 6. 5. With regard to S.85 and 110 of Act 11 of 1950 not even learned counsel for the appellant pretends that any liability can conceivably arise under these section. 6. I dismiss the appeal Dismissed.