Judgment :- 1. The revision-petitioner before the Sessions Court at Trichur, was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, at that station, under S.110 of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act, read with R.123 framed thereunder, for his failure to furnish a return of his professional income within the Panchayat limits, for the first half of 1955-56, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three days. In revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Trichur was inclined to the view, that the levy of profession tax itself was not legal, as lacking in the previous sanction of Government, as required by S.56[c] of the aforesaid Act and R.118 thereunder, and that therefore, the revision petitioner had not committed the offence with which he was charged. He has, therefore, reported the case to this court, under S.438 Crl. P. C. for orders. 2. In this court, notice of the reference had been issued to the President of the Panchayat, and to the revision-petitioner in the court below. The Public Prosecutor alone has appeared to argue the reference, and in so doing, he has supported the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, that the levy of profession tax was invalid, as lacking in the requisite government sanction, and that in spite of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats [Validation of Imposition and Collection of rates, taxes, cesses, and fees] Act 1958, by reason of the proviso to S.2 thereof, the revision petitioner cannot be punished. No doubt, the prosecutor took a different stand before the learned Sessions Judge, that the conviction can be supported under the aforesaid Validation Act of 1958; but the learned Public Prosecutor who appeared before me, frankly admitted his inability to support the stand so taken in the lower court. It is unfortunate, that the President of the Panchayat had not entered appearance in these proceedings, and so I have not had the opportunity of hearing him, on the points raised in this reference. 3. It seems to me, that the position is fairly clear. There can be no doubt, that the levy and imposition of profession tax is illegal, for want of Government sanction under S.56 [c] of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayat Act and R.118 thereunder. 3. It seems to me, that the position is fairly clear. There can be no doubt, that the levy and imposition of profession tax is illegal, for want of Government sanction under S.56 [c] of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayat Act and R.118 thereunder. The proviso to S.2 of the Validation Act reads as follows: "Provided that no act or omission on the part of any person shall be punishable as an offence, which would not have been so punishable, if this Act had not been passed". The proviso means what it says, that if the revision petitioner in the court below, could not have been punished before the Validation Act was passed, then in spite of that Act, by reason of the proviso to S.2, he cannot be punished. The notice to the revision petitioner to furnish a return of his professional income, Ext. P1 was dated the 1st October, 1955). The complaint to the trial magistrate was presented only on the 16th November 1955. This was long before the Validation Act was passed. If the levy and the imposition of professional tax were illegal on that day, as I have already held, the revision-petitioner in the court below, had not committed any offence. In spite of the passing of the Validation Act, he could not be deemed to have committed any offence, and is not liable to be punished. His case is completely saved by the proviso to S.2. 4. The same view has been taken by a Division Bench of this court, in R. Gopinathan Nair v. Palode Panchayat 1958 K. L. T. 550 upon a similar proviso to S.3 of the Entertainments Tax (Validation of Levy and Collection) Act XXVI of 1955. The object of that Act is also similar, to validate the levy and collection of entertainment tax. 5. It therefore follows, that the revision-petitioner of the court below has not commuted any offence. The conviction entered by the sub-divisional Magistrate at Trichur is hereby quashed, and the sentence imposed is set aside. The fine, if paid, will be refunded. The reference is accepted, and is answered in the above terms.