Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal by the Ernakulam Municipality represented by the Commissioner against the order of the District Magistrate, acquitting the respondent, who was prosecuted under under S.115 of Act XVIII of 1113 of Cochin read with R.31 (2) of the Taxation and Finance Rules. 2. The respondent is a resident of the Mulavukad Panchayat and a teacher in the St. Albert's High School, Ernakulam. He was assessed to profession tax of Rs. 4 - for the year 1956-57 and was prosecuted on the allegation that the distraint of property is impracticable. The report to that effect made by pw. 2 the Revenue Inspector of the Municipality is Ext. P-4. It only says that the defaulter has no movable assets within the town. Admittedly the accused is a resident of Mulavukad and his movables are expected to be there and not in the town where he is employed. R.31 (1) of the Taxation and Finance Rules enables the Executive Authority to recover by distraint and sale of the movable property of the defaulter the amount due on account of tax and sub-rule (2) authorises prosecution only if for any reason the distraint or a sufficient distraint of the defaulter's property is impracticable. The Rules specify the procedure to be followed in effecting distraint and enjoin that no distraint shall be made if the tax and fee are paid on demand and also that the sale of the property seized is to be effected only if the property seized is not redeemed by the payment of the tax and fee within seven days. R.35 provides for the distraint of the movable property of a defaulter under R.31 wherever it may be found within the Cochin State and the succeeding rules prescribe the procedure to be adopted. 3. The only point urged on behalf of the Municipality is that R.35 sub-clause (1) is only an enabling provision and the Executive Authority is not bound to order distraint of movables outside the Municipal limits. 4. To me it appears that there is no force in this objection. 3. The only point urged on behalf of the Municipality is that R.35 sub-clause (1) is only an enabling provision and the Executive Authority is not bound to order distraint of movables outside the Municipal limits. 4. To me it appears that there is no force in this objection. The Municipality gets the jurisdiction to prosecute only when the distraint or a sufficient distraint of the defaulter's property becomes impracticable and since they are given the power to proceed against the movables outside the limits it cannot be said that distraint has become impracticable before an attempt is made to effect such a distraint. Else the pre-requisite of a criminal prosecution, viz., impracticability of realisation by distraint becomes a mere farce especially in cases like the present one where admittedly no movables are available within the Municipal limits but are available outside the limits where the defaulter has his residence. I feel that before saying that distraint was impracticable the Municipality should have proceeded against the available assets within the Cochin State. 5. The order of acquittal is therefore confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.