Judgment :- 1.A question regarding the interpretation of some of the rules framed under the Kerala Panchayats Act of 1960 is raised in this appeal; and I think that the interpretation by the magistrate is erroneous. 2. The respondent unauthorisedly occupied a plot of land which vested in the panchayat. A fine of R.100/- was imposed on her by the panchayat under R.3 (2) of the Kerala Panchayats (Removal of Encroachments and Imposition and Recovery of Penalties for Unauthorised Occupation) Rules, 1964. The amount was not paid; and a prosecution was launched against her by the Panchayat. The lower court has acquitted her observing that for the non-payment of the fine imposed under the aforesaid rule no prosecution is competent. 3. As already stated, R.3 (2) of the Removal of Encroachments Rules authorises the panchayat to impose a fine; and under the Rules Regarding Demanding Amounts Due To Panchayats Where There Is No Special Provision (a sort of residuary provision) all costs, damages, compensation, penalties, charges, etc. and other sums which, under the Panchayats Act or any other law or rules or bye-laws made thereunder, are due by any person to the panchayat, may, if there is no special provision in the Act or laws or rules or bye-laws made thereunder for their recovery, be demanded by bill which shall be served on the person concerned and recovered in the manner provided in the rules for the collection of tax under the Act. Sub-rule 4 of R.3 of the Removal of Encroachments Rules also refers to this residuary rule. Therefore, there is no doubt that a fine imposed under R.3 (2) of the Removal of Encroachments Rules can be collected as if it were an arrear of tax. 4. Rule 26 of the Kerala Panchayats (Taxation and Appeal) Rules of 1963 deals with the prosecution of a person for wilful omission to pay a tax to the Panchayat. This rule applies to a case like this; and the view of the magistrate that R.26 does not apply is erroneous. 5. But, there is another hurdle which the Panchayat has to cross. Proviso 2 to S.74 of the Panchayats Act says that if for any reason the distraint or a sufficient distraint of the defaulter's property is impracticable, the executive authority may prosecute the defaulter before a magistrate. This proviso lays down a condition precedent for prosecuting a faulter. 5. But, there is another hurdle which the Panchayat has to cross. Proviso 2 to S.74 of the Panchayats Act says that if for any reason the distraint or a sufficient distraint of the defaulter's property is impracticable, the executive authority may prosecute the defaulter before a magistrate. This proviso lays down a condition precedent for prosecuting a faulter. The evidence in the case relating to the impracticability of distraint is finished by pws.1 and 2. pw.1 is the Panchayat Assistant and pw. 2 the Bill Collector of the panchayat. pw.1 says that he does not know whether the respondent is possessed of any movables. pw. 2 says that he and pw.1 visited the house of the respondent: but he does not categorically say that it was not possible to realise the arrears by the distraint of the movables of the respondent. A prosecution under the Panchayats Act for the wilful omission to pay an amount due to the panchayat can be launched only if the panchayat proves that it was impracticable to realise the amount by a sufficient distraint of the movables of the defaulter. Such evidence is lacking in this case. 6. Therefore, though I disagree with the interpretation of the rules by the magistrate, I agree with his conclusion, as the second proviso to S.74 of the Act has not been complied with. The appeal is dismissed.