Nesargi, J.-These two appeals have been filed by the Secretary, Town Panchayat, Harapanahalli, as against the judgments of acquittal passed in criminal case Nos. 152 of 1971 and 153 of 1971, by the Munsif Magistrate, Harapanahalli. 2. The facts in both the criminal cases are almost identical and the only difference is that the cases are against the different accused. The Town Panchayat, Harapanahalli, demanded from the two accused, certain amount as show tax as per the bye-law made by it on 15th November, 1968. The period in question was 4th February, 1969 to 31st May, 1970. Notices were issued to the two accused and the two accused sent replies saying that the Panchayat was not entitled to levy such tax and demand the same from them. Bills of demand were presented and even then the two accused sent replies contending that the Panchayat was not competent to levy show tax and therefore they were not liable to pay. Thereafter, it appears, that a resolution was passed sanctioning prosecution of the two accused. It was then that the Secretary, Town Panchayat, Harapanahalli; filed the complaints in criminal cases No. 152 of 1971 and No, 153 of 1971, prosecuting the two assused under rule 83 of the Mysore Panchayats Tax and Fees Rules, 1960, read with section 233 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959. 3. We have heard the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State, in these two appeals. 4. We are clearly of the view that these two appeals have to be disposed of on a preliminary question as to whether the complaints filed by the Secretary, Town Panchayat, Harapanahalli, in criminal cases No. 152 of 1971 and No. 153 of 1971, are maintainable in law. 5. Rule 83 (1) of the Mysore Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules, 1960, reads as follows: "83 (1) Prosecution of a defaulter: " if for any reason the distraint or a sufficient distraint of the defaulter’s property is impracticable, the Chairman or the person authorised by him may prosecute the defaulter before a Magistrate." It is clear from the above that two things are necessary before such a prosecution is launched (1) there must be reasons for distraint or the sufficient distraint of the defaulter’s property being impracticable and (2) then the Chairman or a person authorised by him can in law prosecute the defaulter. 6. 6. As already pointed out, the complaint is filed not by the Chairman of the Town Panchayat, Harapanahalli, but by the Secretary, Town Panchayat, Harapanahalli. Such a secretary, according to the above mentioned provision, would be competent to file the complaint only if he were to be authorised by the Chairman of the Town Panchayat. No such authorisation by the Chairman has been produced in this case. Neither the complaints nor the sworn testimony of the Secretary in both the cases disclose that the Secretary had been authorised by the Chairman of the Town Panchayat, Harapanahalli, to prosecute the two accused persons. It is hence manifest that the Secretary who is the complainant in the two cases and who is the appellant in these two appeals, has not established that he was authorised by the Chairman of the Town Panchayat, Harapanahalli, to prosecute these two accused. Therefore it will have to be held that he having no power to prosecute the accused, the complaints filed by him are not maintainable in law. The learned Magistrate ought to have disposed of the two cases on this preliminary point only but it appears that this point was not brought to his notice. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that these two appeals are also incompetent because the appellant secretary could not in law present these appeals and prosecute the same. The other questions that have been raised, need not be, in our opinion , gone into as we have held that the complaints in the lower Court and the appeals in this Court, are not maintainable. 8. The appeals are therefore dismissed. S.V.S. ----- Appeals dismissed