( 1 ) THIS petition is disposed of by the following order after notice to respondent and after hearing the counsel for parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has been the owner of a Cinema Theatre in Anekal, since 1977. Aggrieved by the show cause notice issued to him by the respondent-District Magistrate, Bangalore, calling upon him to show cause why licence should not be revoked under S. 17 of the Karnataka cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner has approched this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for redress. ( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has stated on the basis of the records that the cause for issuing the show cause notice impugned was the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the entertainment Tax Officer under the karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958 that the petitioner was a chronic evader of taxes and that he was due in a sum of rs. 4,191-80 under the Entertainment Tax act, 1958. ( 4 ) WHATEVER may be the legitimate cause or grievance of the Entertainments tax Officer or the District Magistrate on a plain reading of S. 17 of the Act, It is only if three conditions are satisfied, that the District Magistrate gets jurisdiction to proceed to cancel or suspend the licence of a licence-holder under the Act. These three conditions are that the licensee under the Act must be convicted under sec. 7 of the Karnataka Cinematograph act, 1952 or under Sec. 16 of the Act or under Sec. 12 of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958. ( 5 ) IN the absence of conviction under the laws mentioned above, the District magistrate cannot assume jurisdiction. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, it is not disputed that the petitioner has not been convicted under any one of the aforementioned Acts enumerated in S. 17 of the Act. However, the learned Government Pleader has argued that the petitioner having committed an offence under s. 12 of the Entertainments Tax Act and compounded the same, it must be presumed that the petitioner was convicted. It is difficult to subscribe to such a proposition much less endorse it. The conviction as is normally understood, as it ought to be understood, is conviction in accordance with law by a court of competent Criminal jurisdiction. It is difficult to subscribe to such a proposition much less endorse it. The conviction as is normally understood, as it ought to be understood, is conviction in accordance with law by a court of competent Criminal jurisdiction. In the absence of such conviction in a Criminal Court, which has become final, the District Magistrate cannot proceed under S. 17 of the Act. ( 7 ) FOR the above reasons, the petitioner succeeds. The impugned show cause notice is liable to be struck down as without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the rule will be issued and there will be no order as to costs. ( 8 ) SHRI Venkatachalaiah, learned High court Government Pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from today. --- *** --- .