Judgment :- 1. This Revision Petition arises out of a prosecution under the provisions of the Madras Village Panchayats Act X of 1950. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the President of the Kurumathur Panchayat Board who is the complainant. The petitioner was convicted by the Honorary Special First Class Magistrate, Cannanore for his failure to take out a licence for the year 1958-59, for carrying on the process of converting latex into crude rubber sheets in his Rubber Estate within the limits of the Kurumathur Panchayat Board, as provided by S.91 of the Act and the Rules and Notifications thereunder and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days. On revision to the Sessions Court, Tellicherry, that order was confirmed. Hence this revision. 2. The only grounds advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner are (i) that distraint proceedings are a condition precedent to the initiation of criminal prosecution and (ii) that the conversion of latex into rubber sheets is not a manufacturing process so as to bring it within the purview of Clause VI (c) of the Notification published by Kurumathur Panchayat. 3. The first contention has necessarily to fail because R.24 (2) of the Rules relating to assessment and Collection of Taxes framed under the Madras Village Panchayats Act on which the petitioner relies has no application to this case. R.23(1) provides that: "When a house tax is due from any person, the executive authority of the panchayat shall serve upon such person a bill for the sum due before he proceeds to enforce the provisions of R.24." Rule 24 (1) enjoins, that: "If the amount of the tax demanded is not paid within fifteen days from the service of the bill the executive authority may recover by distraint under his warrant and sale of the movable property of the defaulter and R.24 (2) reads: "If for any reason the distraint or a sufficient distraint of the defaulter's property is impracticable, executive authority may prosecute the defaulter before a Magistrate". It is therefore clear, that R.24 (2) relates to action taken to realise arrears of tax and has no application to a prosecution under S.115 of the Act for contravening the provision of S.91 and the Notification issued thereunder prescribing the taking of a licence for manufacturing latex into rubber sheets. It is therefore clear, that R.24 (2) relates to action taken to realise arrears of tax and has no application to a prosecution under S.115 of the Act for contravening the provision of S.91 and the Notification issued thereunder prescribing the taking of a licence for manufacturing latex into rubber sheets. 4. As for the second contention it may be mentioned that it was not urged either in the trial or the appellate court and does dot find a place even in the revision memo. Evidently it is based on the recent decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax & Sales-Tax v. Sherneilly Rubber and Cardamom Estate Ltd. & Others -1961 KLT. 25. That decision to which one of us was a party arose under the General Sales Tax Act, Madras. There, while interpreting S.2, clause (1) of that Act, with a view to finding out whether Rubber Sheets are agricultural produce, it was observed that: "Whether a particular process alters the character of the agricultural or horticultural produce to that of manufactured article, is a question of fact, but as a general guiding principle of law it can be safely laid down that if an agriculturist puts the produce gathered from his lands to certain minimum processes ordinarily employed by an agriculturist to make it really marketable or more marketable or to make it fit to be taken to market, it cannot be said the produce ceases to be an agricultural or horticultural produce." The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if latex, even after it has been turned into rubber sheet, can be termed agricultural produce, then the process of turning of latex into rubber, is not a manufacturing process. We do not think, that the word 'manufacturing' is used in any such restricted sense in the present rule, the object of which is entirely different. We do not think, that the word 'manufacturing' is used in any such restricted sense in the present rule, the object of which is entirely different. S.91 of the Village Panchayats Act reads as follows: "The Panchayat 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 this behalf, being purposes which, in the opinion of the Government, are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property without a licence issued by the executive authority and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such licence." It is clear from the section that the object underlying it is to enable a Panchayat to exercise a control over the use of any place within its limits, for carrying on any work which is likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property. The relevant rule passed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by S.91 of the Village Panchayats Act authorised the Panchayat with the previous approval of the Regional Inspector concerned to notify that "no place within the limits of the village shall be used for any of the purposes mentioned in the rule without a licence under S. 91 of the Act" and item No. (s) which is specified therein is "manufacturing anything from which offensive or unwholesome smell arises". Ext. P5 is the notification issued by the Kurumathur Panchayat under the above rule with the previous approval of the prescribed authority and item VI (c) of the schedule in the notification specified "manufacturing anything from which offensive or unwholesome smell arises" as one of the purposes for which the premises may not be used without a licence or permission and manufacturing rubber sheets, tearing up rubber sheets, etc. are also specifically mentioned. The malayalam translation of the notification published in the Cannanore District Gazette dated 25th October 1957 which is marked Ext. P4 in the case translates clause (e) 5. What is intended to be controlled is therefore clear. It is to control the use of any place within the limits of the Panchayat, for making rubber sheets, tearing up rubber sheets, etc. which is considered to emit offensive or unwholesome smell. P4 in the case translates clause (e) 5. What is intended to be controlled is therefore clear. It is to control the use of any place within the limits of the Panchayat, for making rubber sheets, tearing up rubber sheets, etc. which is considered to emit offensive or unwholesome smell. Reading S.91 in the context in which it is placed in the Act, in the chapter entitled 'Public Safety, Convenience and Health" and understood with reference to the object in enacting it, the word 'manufacturing' occurring in the rule and notification has to be interpreted in a wide sense and not in the restricted sense in which it was construed in the case cited. We are therefore of the view that the word 'manufacturing' used in the rule and notification under the Village Panchayats Act was intended to convey the larger meaning of "making". The revision petition fails and is dismissed. Dismissed.