Judgment :- This petition has been filed by, the Executive Officer, Wadakkancherry Panchayat for obtaining leave under S. 378(4) Cr.P.C. to file a criminal appeal against the acquittal. I heard Mr. Siby Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. P. Sreekumar, learned counsel for the first respondent. From their submissions and on the basis of the materials now available before this Court, the criminal appeal itself can be disposed of today. Therefore, this petition is allowed granting leave to the petitioner and the Crl. Appeal is numbered as 472 of 1998. 2. The appellant-Panchayat, according to its case, let out one of its shop rooms, No. 5 of the Shopping Centre Building to the first respondent for a monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/-. First respondent defaulted in the payment of rent. Therefore, a statutory notice was issued by the appellant as contemplated in Rule 13 of the Kerala Panchayats (Taxation and Appeal) Rules 1963 framed under the parent Act, Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The above Rule 13 provides that the statutory notice shall containing the particulars of statement of the period, description of the occupation, property, arrears of tax, etc. As provided in Rule 14 after the receipt of the notice within 15 days, a defaulter should pay the arrears along with the notice fee, etc., or he must send a reply to the notice as to how he is not liable to pay the arrears. In case no arrears is paid or no sufficient cause is shown by die defaulter for not paying the arrears. Panchayat can seen the remedy of the civil Court as provided in Rule 15. Panchayat can also seek its remedy by a distraint instead of filing a civil suit. 3. Section 74 of the Act reads as follows : "74. Recovery of arrears of tax, cess etc. Panchayat can seen the remedy of the civil Court as provided in Rule 15. Panchayat can also seek its remedy by a distraint instead of filing a civil suit. 3. Section 74 of the Act reads as follows : "74. Recovery of arrears of tax, cess etc. Any arrear of cess, rate, surcharge or tax imposed or fees levied under this Act shall be recoverable as an arrear of public revenue under the law relating to the recovery of arrears of public revenue for the time being in force : Provided that the executive authority may directly recover by distraint, under his warrant, and sale of movable properties of the defaulter subject to such rules as may be prescribed The above section is so explicit that in case of the non-payment of arrears of rent, etc., after complying with the statutory notice under Rules 13 and 14, the executive authority of the Panchayat can directly recover the same by distraint, under his warrant for the sale of the movable properties of the defaulter. Neither Section 74 nor any of the rules framed there under would signify that the distraint for the recovery of the arrears should be only in respect of the movables of the defaulter kept in the premises rented out to him. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that the distraint can be executed in respect of the movables belonging to the defaulter whether it is kept in the rented building or in other building owned by the defaulter. In case of executing the distraint under the seal of the authority could not be executed, then only the Panchayat authority can seek their remedy of criminal prosecution. In this context it has to be borne in mind that the burden lies on the authority that there was impracticability or impossibility with its normal prudence in executing the warrant. 4. In the instant case on hand the statutory notice under Rule 13 was sent by the appellant on 27-12-1989 which was received by the first respondent on 29-12-1989 as in seen in the postal acknowledgment produced here. After the expiry of 15 days as contemplated in Rule 14 of the Rules on 27-1-1990 the distraint has been issued. 4. In the instant case on hand the statutory notice under Rule 13 was sent by the appellant on 27-12-1989 which was received by the first respondent on 29-12-1989 as in seen in the postal acknowledgment produced here. After the expiry of 15 days as contemplated in Rule 14 of the Rules on 27-1-1990 the distraint has been issued. In this junction it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the distraint under the seal of the warrant was taken to the premises rented out to the first respondent for execution. When the officer went there, the premises was found locked and so the warrant could not be executed. It is not the case of the appellant that he made an attempt in executing the warrant by going to the residential address of the first respondent. It is to be borne in mind that the statutory notice was sent by the appellant only to the residential address of the first respondent which as adverted to above, was received by him. Therefore, there is no interception or way layer to the appellant in going to the residence of the first respondent to execute the distraint. In other words, he could have very well executed the warrant in respect of the movables of the first respondent kept in his residence other than the exempted category defined in S. 60, CPC. Therefore, the above act of the appellant cannot attract or amount to impossibility or impracticability in executing the warrant. Hence the appellant cannot seek its remedy under the proviso of S. 74 of the Act. Only in cases where impracticability or impossibility arises in executing the warrant as provided in S. 74 of the Act, it can think about the criminal prosecution. In the instant case before satisfying the requirements of the above said provisions of S. 74, no criminal prosecution can be launched against the first respondent. In this view, the acquittal of the first respondent recorded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkancherry is quite proper and legal and therefore that judgment of acquittal need not be interfered in this appeal. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.