Judgment :- 1. This appeal is filed by the Executive Authority of the Vilakkudy Panchayat against the order passed by the Sub-Magistrate of Punalur acquitting the accused in C.C. 445/61 who had been charged for failure to take out a licence under bye-law 20 of the Vilakkudy Panchayat for storing chemical preparations, viz., Arishtams and Asavams. The accused contended that no licence was necessary as Arishtams and Asavams cannot be said to be chemical preparations. Pw. 5 a doctor in the Government Ayurvedic dispensary was examined to prove that it is a chemical preparation and as such licence is necessary. On the side of the defence the accused examined himself as Dw.1 and reliance was placed on two judgments, one passed by the Corporation First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum and another of the Additional Sub-Magistrate, Kottarakara for the contention that Aristhams and Asavams are not chemical preparations. I am not able to understand how these judgments would be admissible. Whether Arishtams and Asavams will constitute chemical preparation would depend on the nature of the various processes involved in the preparations which question has to be decided on the evidence in the case. Merely saying that it is doubtful whether Arishtams and Asavams would come under chemical preparations will not do. There must be a definite finding. 2. The view of the learned Magistrate that prosecution can be launched only after resorting to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act is not correct. It is enough to refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. C.M. Francis and Co. (AIR. 1961 S.C. 617) where similar provisions in the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act came up for consideration. Their Lordships held: "Both S.19 and 13 lay down the mode of recovery of arrears of tax. It cannot be said that one proceeding is more general than the other because there is much that is common between them, in so far as the mode of recovery is concerned. S.19, in addition to recovery of the amount, gives power to the Magistrate to convict and sentence the offender to fine or in default of payment of fine, to imprisonment. Neither of the remedies for recovery is destructive of the other, because if two remedies are open, both can be resorted to, at the option of authorities recovering the amount. S.19, in addition to recovery of the amount, gives power to the Magistrate to convict and sentence the offender to fine or in default of payment of fine, to imprisonment. Neither of the remedies for recovery is destructive of the other, because if two remedies are open, both can be resorted to, at the option of authorities recovering the amount. Hence, the fact that the authorities have resorted to the remedy under S.19 for non-payment of tax and a warrant was issued under S.386(1) (b), Criminal P. C., for realising the amount does not debar the authorities from resorting to the remedy available under S.13." 3. Reliance was placed on the observation of Mahmood, J. in Shanker Sahai v. Din Dial (ILR.12 All. 409) that where the law provides two or more remedies, there is no reason to think that one debars the other and therefore both must be understood to remain open to him, who claims a remedy. So unless the statute in express words or by necessary implication lays down that one remedy was to the exclusion of the other, the observation of Mahmood, J. quoted above must apply and that in the absence of any such provision in the Act, both the remedies are open to the authorities, and they could resort to any one of them at their option. 4. The question whether S.13 of the General Sales Tax Act was violative of Art.14, inasmuch as the Act provides two forms of coercive collections, one under S.13 and the other under S.19 had come up for consideration in the case in Commercial Produce Syndicate v. State of Kerala (ILR.1962 (1) Kerala 640) where the entire case law has been discussed and the learned Chief Justice speaking for the Bench said that where there exists two separate and distinct remedies both of them could be availed of. The order of acquittal is, therefore, not proper and is set aside. 5. It is represented by the learned defence counsel that since the learned Magistrate relied on the two judgments there was no opportunity for him to lead proper evidence and that a retrial may be ordered giving him sufficient opportunity to lead evidence to prove that Arishtams and Asavams will not come within the category of chemical preparations. 5. It is represented by the learned defence counsel that since the learned Magistrate relied on the two judgments there was no opportunity for him to lead proper evidence and that a retrial may be ordered giving him sufficient opportunity to lead evidence to prove that Arishtams and Asavams will not come within the category of chemical preparations. The request seems reasonable and the case is, therefore, sent back to the court below with the direction that both parties may be given an opportunity to adduce whatever additional evidence they deem necessary for deciding the question whether Arishtams and Asavams would come within the term chemical preparations. The Magistrate will then decide this question and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. Allowed.