Koshi, C. J.-This is an appeal preferred, with the leave of this Court under section 417 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, against an order of acquittal made by the learned Second Class Magistrate of Pathanamthitta. In C.C. No. 454 of 1956 the Pazhavangadi (Ranni) Panchayat launched a prosecution against the respondent herein, who is the owner and manager of the Mahalakshmi Talkies which was run within the jurisdiction of the said Panchayat for alleged contravention of section 5 of the Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1951 (Act VI of 1951) read with section 10 thereof as also of rules 5, 11 and 12 of the Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Rules, 1951. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused (the respondent) on the ground that the “bye-law (Exhibit-A) passed by the Pancheyat is not in accordance with the mandatory provision laid down under section 12 of the Act”. To us it would appear that Exhibit-A is no bye-law as contemplated by section 12 but only a decision taken under section 3 of the Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act with the imprimatur of the Government super-added as per Rule 118 of the Panchayat Rules 1951 and not a bye-law as contemplated by section 12. So long as there is no proof in the case that the Panchayat concerned had made bye-Laws under section 12 of the Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, we cannot find our way to interfere with the order of acquittal. As pointed out in 1955 K.L.T. 912 section 12 contains a mandatory provision and until the condition laid down in the section is fulfilled a Local Authority cannot levy entertainment tax under section 3 of the Act. The latter decision of the Travancore-Cochin High Court of which a note appears in Thankamma v. Vaikam Municipality,1 only shows that where a Local Authority has made the bye-laws as required by section 12 even if those bye-laws do not cover all the matters referred in the said section rules issued by the Government under section 11 can be made to supplement the same. In other words, that decision only states that where a particular matter is covered by a rule under section 11 the Local Authority is not bound to repeat that as a bye-law under section 12. In other words, that decision only states that where a particular matter is covered by a rule under section 11 the Local Authority is not bound to repeat that as a bye-law under section 12. The latter decision is no authority for the position that when bye-laws have not been made under section 12 the Local Authority can levy entertainment tax by recourse to the rules framed by the Government under section 11. The bye-laws would seem to be the pre-requisite to enforce the decision under section 3. Mr. K.C. John appearing for the appellant stated that apart from Exhibit-A. the Panchayat concerned has made bye-laws under section 12 and requested that the case should be remanded to let in evidence regarding the same. We do not find any reason whatever to extend any such indulgence to the party who before the lower Court, was content with Exhibit-A and did not seek to produce anything else in the shape of bye-laws. If the Panchayat had made bye-laws the unsuccessful termination of the prosecution will not prevent that body from seeking to enforce their claim against the respondent by other means or successfully prosecuting other delinquents. In view of the non-production in the case of any bye-law under section 12 the order of acquittal passed by the lower Court has to be confirmed. We order accordingly and dismiss the appeal. M.C.M. ----- Appeal dismissed.