COMMON JUDGMENT: Commissioner of Ammapet Panchayat Union had come forward with these appeals against acquittal. The Respondents were the accused before the trial Court. All of them were charged for the violation of Sec. 159 and Sec. 160 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 for unauthorisedly running Power Looms. 2. Separate cases have been filed against the respondents/accused. They were all acquitted of the charges by separate judgments. These appeals are preferred against those separate judgments against the order of acquittal. Common points for consideration arise in these appeals. Hence, all the appeals were taken up together, arguments were heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. For reference, we can tabulate the Criminal Appeal Numbers and relevant particulars as noted below: [Particulars omitted - Ed.] 4.Common facts are these: The respondent/accused are running Power Looms, for which service connection is also obtained from the Electricity Board. For the year 1995-96, respondents/ accused have not renewed their licence for running the Power Loom. Show Cause Notice was sent to the respondents/accused calling upon them to pay required renewal licence fee. Notice was sent through Assistant of the Panchayat Union and the Village Administrative Officer. In the notice, the accused were called upon to pay the renewal licence fee for running the Power Loom and to show cause why they should not be prosecuted under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. All the respondents are said to have refused to receive the notice. The notice was served by affixture. 5. The respondents/accused have obtained the service connection for running the Power Loom. Green Card Meter maintained in the Office of the Electricity Board is also produced. For the violation of Secs. 159 and 160 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), sanction was obtained from the District Collector, Erode District and the accused were prosecuted. 6. To substantiate the charges, in the trial Court, P.W.1-Assistant of the Panchayat, P.W.2-Junior Engineer of Electricity Board, P.W.3-the Village Administrative Officer of Area “Murali” and P.W.4-Commissioner were examined. After strenuous reasonings, the trial Magistrate raised doubts as to whether the accused were actually running the Power Loom. At the same time, the trial Magistrate found that the accused have already installed the Power Loom and violation of Sec. 160 of the Act would not arise. After strenuous reasonings, the trial Magistrate raised doubts as to whether the accused were actually running the Power Loom. At the same time, the trial Magistrate found that the accused have already installed the Power Loom and violation of Sec. 160 of the Act would not arise. The complaints filed by the Panchayat were dismissed mainly on the grounds: (i) Respondents/accused are not proved to be the owners of the service connection; (ii) non-production of Notification under Sec. 159(2) of the Act notifying the prohibition of running of the Power Loom without paying licence fee/or obtaining renewal of the licence. 7. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the complaints, the Panchayat Union, Ammapet has preferred these batch of appeals. 8. Advancing common arguments, the learned counsel for the Appellant Panchayat assailed the reasoning of the trial Court contending that the trial Court has not properly assessed the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and the electricity card produced and that the reasonings are unsustainable. Contending that the trial Court erred in dismissing the complaints on the ground of non-production of the Notification, the learned counsel submitted that under Sec.57 of Indian Evidence Act, the Court ought to have taken judicial notice of the existence of the Notification under Sec. 159(2) of the Act and that the reasonings of acquittal are perverse and unsustainable. The learned counsel also drawn my attention to batch of other appeals (C.As.No.673 to 677 and 737 to 752 of 1996), which were allowed by Justice A.Ramamurthi, J. 9. Attacking the maintainability of the complaints under Secs. 159 and 160 of the Act, the learned counsel for the respondents/accused submitted that Sec. 160 of the Act only deals with “Permission for construction of factories and the installation of machinery” and not renewal of licence. Taking me through one of the judgments of the trial Court in C.A.No.879 of 1997, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Panchayat had not discharged the burden cast upon it in establishing that the accused are running the Power Loom. Further taking me through the individual instances, the learned counsel submitted that the Meter Cards produced cannot be correlated to the accused. It is further submitted that as the Panchayat has not discharged its burden, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused and that the order of acquittal warrants no interference. 10. Further taking me through the individual instances, the learned counsel submitted that the Meter Cards produced cannot be correlated to the accused. It is further submitted that as the Panchayat has not discharged its burden, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused and that the order of acquittal warrants no interference. 10. Upon careful reassessment of the evidence and materials on record, impugned judgment and submissions of both sides, in my view, the following points arise for consideration: (1) Whether the finding of the trial Court that the accused are not proved to be owners of the service connection is correct? (2) Whether the trial Court was right in saying that violation of Sec. 160 of the Act is not proved? (3) Whether the reasonings for acquittal suffer from serious and substantial error warranting interference? 11. From the gist of the offence stated in the complaint, it is seen that the Panchayat has sought for; (i) to summon the accused and to deal with him in accordance with law; and (ii) also collection of the licence fee; While the trial Court acquitted the accused, no direction was given for collection of licence fee. In the impugned judgment, no reasons are stated as to why such order of collecting the licence fee is also declined. 12. We may point out that the complaint filed as such for violation of Secs. 159 and 160 is defective. Under Sec. 159 of the Act, “Panchayat is empowered to prohibit the use of places for the notified purposes without a licence obtained from them”. Sec. 160 of the Act regulates the Permission for construction of factories and installation of machinery. Secs. 159 and 160 of the Act are only substantive provision/general provision regulating the permission for construction of factories and installation of machinery, etc. Secs.159 and 160 are not the penal provisions. The penalties for breach of Rules is dealt with in Sec.243. Penalties for violation of BY-laws is dealt with in Sec.244. In the complaint, the penal provision of Secs.243 or 244 is not quoted. But the defect in filing of the complaint and not quoting of penal provision was not made a contentious point before the trial Court. Parties have also gone through the trial. Hence, non-quoting of penal provision in the complaint may be left at that point. In the complaint, the penal provision of Secs.243 or 244 is not quoted. But the defect in filing of the complaint and not quoting of penal provision was not made a contentious point before the trial Court. Parties have also gone through the trial. Hence, non-quoting of penal provision in the complaint may be left at that point. Suffice it to point out that in future the Panchayat would be properly advised to rectify those mistakes. 13. The accused have already installed the Power Looms. The accused have not paid the renewal of licence fee. In the view of the trial Court, Sec.160 deals only “Permission for construction of factories and installation of machinery.....” and not renewal of licence. This finding of the trial Court though appears to be correct, the same cannot be made a ground for dismissal of the complaint. Sec.160 of the Act is to be read with Sec. 161, which deals with “renewal of licences and permissions”. The reasoning of the trial Court that the complaint would not fall under Sec.160 of the Act and thereby dismissing the complaint is perverse and erroneous. The trial Magistrate ought to have taken note of Sec.161 of the Act also. 14. Notice under Secs. 159 and 160 of the Act calling upon the respondents/accused was sent. Case of complainant Panchayat is that accused refused to receive the notice and hence, notice was served by affixture on the door. The complaints are filed on the premise that all the accused have refused to receive the notice. Contending that there is no proper service of notice, the learned counsel for the respondents/accused Mr. A.K.Kumarasamy contended that there is no mention of address and other particulars in the notice said to have been taken to the accused. Of course in the notice, address of the accused, number of Power Looms and other details are not stated. Signature of third party for service by affixture on the door is also not obtained. In the notice, only the Village Administrative. Officer has endorsed The learned counsel for the respondents/accused contended that it is quite unbelievable that in all the instances invariably, accused refused to receive the notice, which itself throws doubt on the claim of the Panchayat. Of course it is quite improbable that in all 25 cases, all the accused have refused to receive the notice. Officer has endorsed The learned counsel for the respondents/accused contended that it is quite unbelievable that in all the instances invariably, accused refused to receive the notice, which itself throws doubt on the claim of the Panchayat. Of course it is quite improbable that in all 25 cases, all the accused have refused to receive the notice. Village Administrative Officer had endorsed that the accused have refused to receive the notice. Thereafter the Panchayat would have done well had it endeavoured to serve personal notice upon the accused by some acceptable mode of service. But this point that there was no proper service of notice was not urged before the trial Court. 15. In all the cases, the trial Magistrate found that the Respondents accused are not proved to be running the Power Looms. By so saying, the trial Court brushed aside the material evidence: (i) oral evidence of Village Administrative Officer about the ownership of the accused in running the Power Loom; (ii) production of Green Meter Card either in the name of the accused or in the name of their father. By careful consideration of the judgment of the trial Court, it is seen that the trial Court was persistent in discarding the Green Meter Cards and the evidence of service connection for one reason or other. 16. Illustratively we may refer to few instances: C.A.No.861 of 1997and S.T.C. No.812 of 1996: In this case, service connection stands in the name of Kaveri Chetti. The said Kaveri Chetti is none other than the father of the accused Manoharan. While so, in para (7) of its judgment, the trial Court found that the complainant Panchayat has not proved service connection given to the accused. 17. On the above reasonings the trial Court found that the accused is not proved to be running Power Loom. This reasonings of the trial Court is perse erroneous and unsustainable. The trial Court ought to have taken note of the fact that the accused is none other than the son of the Service Connection Holder Kaveri Chetti. 18.C.A.Nos.862 of 1997 and 813 of 1996: In this case also, service connection stands in the name of accused Nirmalanandham, who is the father of the accused Madesh. The trial Court ought to have taken note of the fact that the accused is none other than the son of the Service Connection Holder Kaveri Chetti. 18.C.A.Nos.862 of 1997 and 813 of 1996: In this case also, service connection stands in the name of accused Nirmalanandham, who is the father of the accused Madesh. Here again, the learned Magistrate has discarded Green Meter Card and the evidence of P.W.2-Junior Engineer finding that the complainant has not proved the service connection for the Power Loom in the name of the accused. In this instant also, the learned Magistrate has brushed aside the definite evidence of service connection in the name of Nirmalanandham for running the Power Loom. 19.C.A.No.863 of 1997 and S.T.C.No.814 of 1996: In this case also, service connection stands in the name of Nanjundan. But the same was not acceptable to the trial Magistrate since the father’s name was not mentioned. The trial Magistrate erred in overlooking the Electricity Meter Card on flimsy ground that the father’s name is not mentioned. 20. Analysis of evidence is not far from reality. It is the assessment of materials on record by the trained judicial mind. When the Green Meter Card was produced standing in the name of the father, the trial Court ought to have correlated the same with the accused. When the Green Meter Card stands exactly in the name of the accused, the trial Court seems to be persistent in disbelieving the same on the flimsy ground that father’s name is not mentioned. In my view, the trial Magistrate was unjustifiably obstinate in disbelieving the material evidence produced by the Complainant Panchayat. There is no judicial application of mind in assessing the evidence and reasonings for acquittal suffer from serious and substantial error. 21. Main ground of dismissal of the Complaints is the non-production of the Notification-notifying the running of Power Loom without obtaining licence or renewal of licence. Under Sec.159 of the Act, Panchayat is empowered to prohibit the use of places for the purposes without a licence obtained from them. The relevant provision Sec.159(2) of the Act reads thus: 159(2). 21. Main ground of dismissal of the Complaints is the non-production of the Notification-notifying the running of Power Loom without obtaining licence or renewal of licence. Under Sec.159 of the Act, Panchayat is empowered to prohibit the use of places for the purposes without a licence obtained from them. The relevant provision Sec.159(2) of the Act reads thus: 159(2). Purposes for which places may not be used without a licence: (1) xxx (2) The Panchayat union council in the case of panchayat villages may, with the previous approval of the prescribed authority, notify that no place within the limits of any panchayat village in the panchayat development block or within the limits of such panchayat village or villages as may be specified in the notification shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the notification issued under Sub-sec.(1) without a licence and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such licence. 22. The trial Court faulted the Complainant Panchayat for non-production of the Notification issued under Sec.159(2) that the running of Power Loom without renewal of licence is not permissible. Non production of such Notification is the main reason for dismissal of the Complaints and acquitting the accused. By careful consideration of the evidence and materials on record, it is seen that maintainability of the Complaint on this score i.e., - on the ground of non production of Notification was not at all made a contentious point. In fact, during the cross examination of P.W.4-Commissioner also, he was not questioned about such Notification and the maintainability of the Complaint. While so, the trial Court adopted its own approach and reasonings and made it a ground for acquittal. If really the trial Court had felt that such Notification was essential, it ought to have called upon the complainant Panchayat to produce the same and ought not to have dismissed the Complaints on such technical ground. 23. While so, the trial Court adopted its own approach and reasonings and made it a ground for acquittal. If really the trial Court had felt that such Notification was essential, it ought to have called upon the complainant Panchayat to produce the same and ought not to have dismissed the Complaints on such technical ground. 23. Pointing out that both parts of Sec. 111 of Madras Panchayat Act, 1958 (corresponding new Provision was Sec.159 of Act XX1 of 1994) are the integral parts in Textool Company Ltd., Coimbatore v. The ganapathi Town Panchayat,1971 L.W. (Crl.) 122, this Court has held: "A reading of the two parts of Sec. 111 would disclose that both the parts of the section are so integrated that the executive officer of the Panchayat would not have acted on his own without the existence of a Notification issued by the Government under Sec.111(1). That apart, in view of Sec.57 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court can take judicial notice of the existence of the notification under Sec. 111 of the Act". In view of Sec.57 of the Indian Evidence Act, the trial Court ought to have taken judicial notice of the existence of the Notification under Sec.159(2). 24. It is to be pointed out that whenever a Panchayat or other Civic Bodies come to the Court prosecuting for the violation of Rules and Regulations, duty is enjoined upon the Court to espouse for substantial justice. As noted earlier in para (11), Complaint was launched not only for prosecution of violation of the Rules but also collection of licence fee. Even while acquitting the respondents/accused, the trial Court ought to have directed the respondents/accused to pay the renewal licence fee as indicated in the Complaint. This Court is of the view that the trial Court ought not to have avoided its responsibility of collecting the amount by acquitting the accused on technical grounds. After all the income from the fee on licence is not payable towards an individual, but towards Panchayat. Under Sec. 161(4) of the Act, the income derived from fees on licences under Sec. 159 and on permission under Sec.160 shall, if received by the panchayat union council, be credited to the funds of the village panchayat concerned. After all the income from the fee on licence is not payable towards an individual, but towards Panchayat. Under Sec. 161(4) of the Act, the income derived from fees on licences under Sec. 159 and on permission under Sec.160 shall, if received by the panchayat union council, be credited to the funds of the village panchayat concerned. It is with this collected funds, the Civic Responsibilities of the Panchayat providing water supply, sanitation, maintenance of road, street lighting and such other important civic responsibilities are to be discharged. The Courts of law which form part of the Society also enjoy these civic amenities to the extent they are available. While so, without realising its responsibility, the trial Court erred in dismissing the complaints on technical grounds. 25. The reasonings of acquittal suffer from serious and substantial error. The trial Court overlooked the fact that the respondents/accused have not paid the renewal of licence fee. The trial Court ought not to have glossed over the issue and acquitting the accused on technical grounds. In fact, in similar batch matter of the same Panchayat in C.A.Nos.673’to 677 and 737 to 752 of 1996, A.Ramamurthi, J., also finding that the reasonings of acquittal suffer from perversity, reversed the order of acquittal and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh trial. Though I am fully agreeing with the view taken by the learned Judge, since the acquittal is of the year 1997, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal at this distant point of time. Secondly, the instances of violation only relate to one period, namely, 1995-1996. While declining to interfere with the order of acquittal, however direction could be given for collection of renewal of licence fee for the year 1995-96 as indicated in the complaint (of course without penalty). It is directed that the renewal of licence fee is to be paid by all the respondents/accused by April 2004. Failure of payment of renewal of licence fee could be made a ground by the Panchayat for consideration of future application for renewal of licence. 26. For the reasons stated above, all these C.As.No.861 to 886 of 1997 are dismissed subject to the following direction: All the respondents/accused are directed to pay renewal of licence fee for the year 1995-96 as indicated in the complaint (No penalty is chargeable) before 30.4.2004. 26. For the reasons stated above, all these C.As.No.861 to 886 of 1997 are dismissed subject to the following direction: All the respondents/accused are directed to pay renewal of licence fee for the year 1995-96 as indicated in the complaint (No penalty is chargeable) before 30.4.2004. Failure of payment of renewal of licence fee before 30.4.2004 could be made a ground by the Complainant Panchayat for consideration/rejection of the future application for renewal of licence of the Power Looms by the respondents/accused.