Judgment :- 1. This appeal which has been filed with leave is by the complainant who is Secretary of the Malabar Market Committee and is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malappuram, acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under bye law 25(6) read with bye law 25(18) framed under the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act 1933. The prosecution case is that the accused who was a licencee under the Act dealing in coconuts has omitted to produce bis accounts when demanded by the complainant for the period 1 11972 to 3112 1972. It was also alleged that the accused had his business premises at Mankada I village in Perintalmanna taluk and that the Secretary of the Committee had issued him a notice on 17 71973 calling upon him to produce his accounts and that even after accepting the notice, he was a defaulter. The accused totally denied the case and stated that he was not a licencee and had not even made an application for licence. 2. The learned Magistrate held that the application Ext. P1 for licence although signed by the accused had not been handed to PW-1 (Supervisor of the Committee) for being presented to the Secretary and that even if Ext. P1 had been presented to the Secretary by PW-1, it was unauthorised and incapable of being acted upon. He also held that there was no proof of the licence having been granted and issued to the accused pursuant to Ext. P1. On these grounds he gave the accused the benefit of doubt and acquitted him. 3. Ext. P1 is a printed application form for licence under the Act with suitable space for the name of the applicant on the left. On the right is noted the addressee, who is the Collector through the Secretary, Malabar Market Committee, Kozhikode. Ext P1 bears the signature of the accused and has all the details filled in. P.W-1 has deposed that although the details were filled up by him the signature was put by the accused at the appropriate places. The Magistrate has also found that PW-1 had filled up the form and that the accused had signed it in his presence. Ext. P1 further shows that it had been forwarded to the Tahsildar, Perintalmanna, and that a licence fee of Rs. 12-50 had been remitted by the accused. The Magistrate has also found that PW-1 had filled up the form and that the accused had signed it in his presence. Ext. P1 further shows that it had been forwarded to the Tahsildar, Perintalmanna, and that a licence fee of Rs. 12-50 had been remitted by the accused. The learned Magistrate's reasoning that it had not been proved that the accused had authorised PW-1 to present Ext. P1 to the Secretary is neither here nor there for by its terms the application is addressed to the Collector through the Secretary. It has also come out in evidence that the power of the Collector has been delegated to Tahsildar by a notification, If it was not to be sent to the proper addressee and for a licence it is impossible to see why the accused had the application filled up by PW-1, signed it and paid the licence fee. PW-1 has deposed that pursuant to the application a licence has been issued to the accused. He has also proved Ext. P2, a copy of the, notice dated 17 71973 which was issued to the accused calling upon him to submit his accounts in respect of the transactions for the period 1-1-1972 to 31-12-1972. The learned Magistrate has definitely found on the evidence of PW-1 and the postal acknowledgment Ext. P3 that the accused has received the original of Ext. P2. It is in evidence that despite the receipt of Ext. P2 the accused has not submitted his accounts nor even cared to send a reply either disputing his liability to submit accounts or his liability to prosecution with which he was threatened in the notice. For this latter conduct on his part there is absolutely no explanation forthcoming. In these circumstances and on the evidence of PW-1 and that furnished by Exts. P1 to P3, I have no difficulty in holding that the accused made the application Ext. P1 and that pursuant to it he had been granted a licence and that he is a defaulter in spite of the acceptance of notice for submission of the accounts during the period in question. 4. Even if it be true that a licence bad riot been actually issued to him, that will not save the accused in view of the decision in Malabar Market Committee v. Hussain, 1969 KLT. 4. Even if it be true that a licence bad riot been actually issued to him, that will not save the accused in view of the decision in Malabar Market Committee v. Hussain, 1969 KLT. 823, where it has been held that an applicant for a licence will be deemed to be a licencee and that if he contravenes bye law 25, he would fall within the mischief of bye law 25(18). The accused is therefore, in either view liable for the penalty under bye law 25(18) as he has admittedly not submitted his accounts. 5. It follows that the acquittal cannot be sustained and will have to be reversed. 6. I reverse the order of the Magistrate, convict the accused under bylaw 25(18) and sentence him to a fine of Rs. 20/- in default to simple imprisonment for 10 days.