Judgment :- 1. This appeal has been filed by the Thalavady Panchayat against the order of the District Magistrate of Alleppey acquitting the accused who was prosecuted for the offence under S.104 of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayat Act - Act 2 of 1950 - [hereinafter referred to as the Act] for having run a power driven rice mill without a licence as enjoined by the notification under S.80 of the Act. It has been amply proved that the mill was run without a licence and this fact is not disputed by the defence. 2. The learned District Magistrate based his order of acquittal on two grounds, namely that there was no valid authorisation for prosecution under S.88 of the Act; and secondly that the failure of the accused to take out a licence was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he had expressed his readiness to take out a licence. 3. Coming to the first point, according to the learned District Magistrate the authorisation must be for the prosecution of a specified individual and for a specific offence after the Panchayat had applied its mind to the facts of the case and the need to prosecute, The learned District Magistrate relied for this view on the decision in City Corporation of Trivandrum v. V.A.N. Arunachalam Reddiar [1960 KLT. 515.] There is nothing in the decision which indicates that the authorisation contemplated cannot be in the shape of a general delegation. This question has been set at rest by the decision in Municipal Health Officer & Food Inspector, Kozhikode v. Arthala Tea Estate Company [1960 KLT. 743] and it has been followed in later decisions of this Court. The section confers upon the Panchayat the power to delegate generally their authority to make a complaint to their Executive Officers and it is for that authority to exercise their decision and decide whether in any given case a complaint shall or shall not be made 4. Coming to the next ground of acquittal it is seen that bye-laws were passed and published on 2-2-1960 requiring licenses to be taken for the running of rice mills. Notice was issued to the accused on 25-4-60 and at last on receipt of the notice it was the duty of the accused to have stopped the running of the rice mill until licence was actually obtained from the Panchayat. Notice was issued to the accused on 25-4-60 and at last on receipt of the notice it was the duty of the accused to have stopped the running of the rice mill until licence was actually obtained from the Panchayat. Instead of that the accused continued to run the mill. It is stated that he sent a money order remitting the licence fee, but that was refused. Under S.80 (2) the owner or occupier of every such place shall, within thirty days of the publication of such notification, apply to the executive authority for a licence for the use of such place for such purpose and the executive authority may by an order and under such restrictions and conditions as he thinks fit grant or refuse to grant such licence There is no case that application had been made. The mere fact that a person is prepared to take out a licence or that he had remitted the money would not justify the running of the mill without a licence. Therefore the offence is clearly made out. 5. I have carefully gone through the observation of the learned Magistrate in Para.6 of the judgment regarding the conduct of the Panchayat authorities and will rest content by saying that there was no justification for making such strong comments. The High Court is very zealous in guarding the independence of Magistrates and judges subordinate to it and would certainly encourage them to feel that they can fearlessly give expression to their opinions in the judgments which they deliver. But there are three necessary limitations, first, no person should be condemned unheard; second, in making his criticism the Magistrate or judge should not travel outside the record; and third, the criticism should be made with sobriety and a due sense of responsibility. 6. In the result, the order of acquittal is set aside and the accused is found guilty of the offence charged against him and he is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days. There will also be a direction to recover summarily the licence fee of Rs. 25/-and pay it over to the Panchayat under S.83(10) of the Act. Time for payment one month from this date. Allowed.