Judgment.- The respondent in this appeal was prosecuted under section 115(1) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, read with section 91 of that Act for failure to take out a licence for running a jute press in Parvatipuram Panchayat area. The Panchayat had notified in the District Gazette, dated 25th January, 1954, after obtaining the prior approval of the Regional Inspector of Local Boards, that a licence should be taken out for a jute press and a fee of Rs. 45 was prescribed therefor. In this case the respondent was admittedly running his jute press without obtaining the requisite licence. Section 91 of the Act provides that the Panchayat with the previous approval of the prescribed authority may notify that no place within the limits of the village shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the rules made in this behalf being purposes which in the opinion of the Government are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property, without a licence issued by the executive authority and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such licence. Section 115 of the Act provides ‘inter alia‘that whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act in the first and second columns of Schedule I, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to the amount mentioned in that behalf in the fourth column of the said Schedule. Schedule I prescribes that using a place for any prescribed purposes without licence or contrary to licence as provided by section 91 of the Act, is punishable with Rs. 100. In this case, the prosecution has adduced evidence through the Sanitary Inspector that the accused was running a jute press in the Panchayat area and that he had been levied a licence fee of Rs. 45 for the year 1955-1956 and that he had been carrying on the trade without the requisite licence as per rules. The Sanitory Inspector further deposed that the Panchayat Board had notified in the District Gazette, dated 24th January, 1954, that this particular trade is licensable. The Sanitary Inspector inspected the premises on 3rd February, 1956 and found the jute press working. The witness further added that the Panchayat is levying the fee to meet the cost incurred by it for employing the services of the Sanitary Inspector, maistry and the licensing clerk. The Sanitary Inspector inspected the premises on 3rd February, 1956 and found the jute press working. The witness further added that the Panchayat is levying the fee to meet the cost incurred by it for employing the services of the Sanitary Inspector, maistry and the licensing clerk. The plea of the accused was that he had not committed any offence and that he had not taken out a licence thinking that it was not necessary. Two ingenious arguments were advanced before the learned Magistrate which he readily accepted. Firstly, it was urged that since there was no proof that the machinery used in the jute press was dangerous or offensive to human life, the requirements of section 91 of the Act were not satisfied. Had the learned Magistrate taken the trouble to read the section a little more carefully, he would have found that the section contemplates not only the purposes which in the opinion of the Government are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life but also for purposes which are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human health as well. Apart from this, it is not the function of a Magistrate dealing with a prosecution under this Act to ascertain whether the machinery used is in fact dangerous or offensive to human life or health. The section envisages the satisfaction of the Government in that regard and once a notification is issued, it is not open to the criminal Court to go behind the notification and require further proof from the prosecution that the purpose for which the licence is required is offensive or dangerous, to human life or health. The second ground on which the learned Magistrate has thrown out the case is that the levy of Rs. 45 per year is excessive and unreasonable and therefore it is not a fee but a tax. If the learned Magistrate was of the view that there must be a mathematical return by way of services rendered by the Panchayat for the fee levied, he is entirely wrong because the real distinction between a fee and a tax is that in respect of a fee there must be a sort of return or an clement of quid pro quo to the person paying the fee. The levy should not be for purposes of revenue but only for services rendered and for expenditure incurred. The levy should not be for purposes of revenue but only for services rendered and for expenditure incurred. In this case there is the evidence of the Sanitary Inspector that some service is rendered and some expenditure is incurred by the Panchayat for issuing licences and for maintaining the staff to do sanitary and other work. The levy cannot be said to be so obviously unreasonable as to be declared a tax. In any event it is not within the province of a Magistrate dealing with a prosecution under this Act to attempt to decide nice legal or constitutional questions of that nature. Such matters should be agitated in civil Courts. The Magistrate is precluded from going into the question of the reasonableness of the levy. It follows that both the grounds on which the order of acquittal is based are untenable and the appeal by the State must be allowed. I therefore convict the respondent of an offence under section 115 read with section 91 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 25, in default to one month’s simple imprisonment. The appeal is allowed. A.B.K. ----- Appeal allowed.