AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—Both revisions were heard in full on 31.7.2007 itself. Only on the representation made by the learned
Counsel Mr. Karthick appearing for the revision petitioners, the matter was adjourend from 31.7.2007 to 03.08.2007. Thereafter, it was further
adjourned to 7.8.2007 and from 7.8.2007 to today ie. 8.8.2007. Today there is no representation for the revision petitioners. Since I have heard
both the counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the counsel for the respondent in full, my verdict is as follows:
The order passed in C.A. No. 43 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, modifying the order of the trial
Court in STC. No. 286 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirupathur, by sentencing a fine of Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs. 6,000/-
u/s 30(2) and 36(1)(a) & (b) of the (IVth Schedule) Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, and directing that out of the fine amount of Rs.
5,000/- a sum of Rs. 4.500/- to be paid as compensation to the complainant-Municipality u/s 357 of Cr.P.C., is under challenge before this Court
in Cr.R.C. No. 800 of 2005.
The order passed in C.A. No. 8 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, modifying the order of the
trial Court in STC. No. 284 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirupathur, by sentencing a fine of Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs.
6,000/- under Rules 30(2) and 36(1)(a) & (b) of the (IVth Schedule) Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, and directing that out of the fine
amount of Rs. 5,000/- a sum of Rs. 4,500/- to be paid compensation to the complainant-Municipality u/s 357 of Cr.P.C., is under challenge
before this Court in Cr.R.C. No. 801 of 2005.
3(a) The short facts of the case of the complaint is that the accused in STC. No. 284 of 2002 is the mother of the accused in STC. No. 286 of
2002, a discharged army man. The accused in STC. No. 284 of 2002 has failed to pay the property tax for the assessment year 2000-01 and
2001-02 amounting to Rs. 4,518/-, inspite of several demands and attachment notice. Hence, the complainant, the Executive Officer of the
Nattarampalli Municipality, had preferred the complaint against the accused (in STC. No. 286 of 2002)under Rule 30(2) and 36(1)(a) & (b) of
the (IVth Schedule) Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. A similar complaint was preferred by the same Executive Officer under Rule 30(2) and
36(1)(a) & (b) of the (IVth Schedule) Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, against the son of the accused in STC. No. 284 of 2002, who is the
accused in STC. No. 286/2002, a discharged army man, for the arrears of property tax for the assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02 amounting
to Rs. 4,338/-, inspite of several demand notices and finally an attachment notice.
3(b) The learned trial judge had convicted and sentenced the accused under Rule 30(2) and 30(1)(a) & (b) of the (IVth Schedule) Tamil Nadu
District Municipalities Act and sentenced the accused in both the cases to pay a fine of Rs. 6,000/- and directed that a sum of Rs. 4,500/- is to be
paid towards compensation in STC. No. 286 of 2002 to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 4,600/- is to be paid towards compensation in STC.
No. 284 of 2002 to the complainant out of the fine amount. Against the findings of the learned trial Judge the accused in STC. No. 284 of 2002
had preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 8 of 2004 and the accused in STC. No. 286 of 2002 had preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 43 of 2004
before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Vellore. The learned first appellant Judge has dismissed both the appeals, which
necessitated the accused in STC. No. 286/2002 to prefer Crl.R.C. No. 800 of 2005 and the accused in STC. No. 284 of 2002 to prefer.
Crl.R.C. No. 801 of 2005 before this Court.
Bebore the trial Court P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined in both the STCs and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were marked.
In STC. No. 286/2002:
5(a) P.W.1 is the Executive Officer of the Complainant-Nattrampalli Municipality. According to him, the accused is having a house and a shop
within the Municipal jurisdiction of Nattrampalli and property tax assessment number for the said house is 1278 and for the shop is 1279 and that
the accused had not paid Rs. 330/- towards the property tax due from 1.10.2000 to 31.3.2001 for the house and Rs. 4,008/- being the property
tax for the shop from 1.10.2000 to 31.3.2001 and a demand notice was issued under Ex.P.1 to the accused and an attachment notice under
Ex.P.2 was also served on the accused by affixture, since the accused has failed to pay the above said property taxes due to the complainant-
Municipality. The complainant took steps for attachment by sending notice for attachment of the properties of the accused, which was vehemently
opposed by the accused. The complainant expecting law and order problem, had preferred the complaint before the trial Court.
5(b) P.W.2 is the Office Assistant of the complainant, who has served both Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 by way of affixture.
5(c) P.W.3 is the Supervisor of the complainant Municipality, who had accompanied P.W.2 while serving Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 notices by way of
affixture.
5(d) When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused would deny his complicity with the crime. He has
examined himself as D.W.1. Through him Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 were marked.
In STC. No. 284/2002:
6(a) The Executive Officer of the Nattrampalli Municipality was examined as P.W.1. According to him, the accused Saroja, the mother of the
accused in STC. No. 286 of 2002, is owning four houses within the jurisdiction of Nattrampalli municipality and the property tax assessment
numbers for the said houses are 1460, 1462, 1463 & 1464 and that the property tax due for the above said house for the period from 1.10.2000
to 31.3.2002 comes to Rs. 4,518/- and a demand notice was issued to the accused under Ex.P.1 and inspite of the service of Ex.P.1-notice the
accused had failed to pay the property tax. Hence, an attachment notice was issued under Ex.P.2. Since the accused had refused to receive the
said attachment notice, the same was served by way of affixture on 23.2.2002 at 11.30 am. Since there was commotion at the time when P.W.2
& P.W.3 went and serve the attachment notice, to avoid law and order problem, the complaint was preferred by P.W.1.
6(b) P.W.2 is the Office Assistant of the complainant of Nattrampalli municipality, who had served Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 notices to the accused by
way of affixture on 16.3.2002 and 22.3.2002 respectively. According to him, the accused had refused to receive the attachment notice and also
restrained him from serving the notice.
6(c) P.W.3 is the Supervisor of the Complainant-Municipality, who had accompanied P.W.2 to the house of the accused at the time when Ex.P.1
and Ex.P.2 were served by way of affixture.
6(d) When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., she would deny her complicity with the crime. She has
examined herself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D.1.
After going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned trial judge has convicted the accused under Rule 30(2) and 36(1)(a) &
(b) of the (IVth Schedule) Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and sentenced a fine of Rs. 6,000/- each against the accused in both STCs. The
appeals preferred by the accused in C.A. No. 43 & 8 of 2004 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Vellore, were also
dismissed by the first appellate Court, which necessitated the accused in STC. No. 286 of 2002 to prefer Crl.R.C. No. 800 of 2005 and the
accused in STC. No. 284 of 2002 to prefer Crl.R.C. No. 801 of 2005 before this Court.
Now the point for determination in these revisions is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the records in following the provisions
under Rule 30(2) and 36(1)(a) & (b) of the (IVth Schedule) Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act by the complainant to warrant any interference
with the findings of the Courts below?
The Point: Heard Mr. Karthik appearing for the revision petitioner in both the revisions and Mr. Jayapraksh Narayanan appearing for the
respondent in both the revisions and considered their respective submissions. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Mr. Karthik would
contend hat to initiate proceedings under Rule 30(2) of the (IVth Schedule) Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act the complainant must show that
the attachment proceedings initiated by the complainant could not be effected due to the intervention of the accused-assesses. The learned Counsel
Mr. Jayaprakash Narayanan appearing for the respondent in both the revisions would focus the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.2
and P.W.3, who have categorically stated before the trial Court that since the demand notice under Ex.P.1 in both STCs were refused to receive
by the accused, the same were served by way of affixture on the doors of the respective houses of the accused. Even after the service of Ex.P.1-
demand notice, the accused never bothered to pay the arrears of property tax, which necessitated the Nattrampalli Municipality/complainant in
both the STCs to initiate attachment proceedings against the accused under Ex.P.2. When P.W.2 and P.W.3 went to serve Ex.P.2-attachment
notice to the accused they created law and order problem, which necessitated the complainant to approach the criminal Court to set the criminal
law in motion. The defence taken by the accused in STC. No. 286 of 2002 is that he is an Ex-exmployee of Indian Army. But there is no material
placed before this Court to show that Ex-army employees are exempted from the levy of property tax. The defence taken by the accused in
STC.284/2002, the mother of the accused in STC. No. 286 of 2002, is that the Municipality has assessed and levied the tax of Rs. 4008/- to the
house when Electricity Board was occupying the same as a tenant and subsequently the Electricity Board has vacated. If it is so, the remedy open
to the accused in STC. No. 284 of 2002 is to approach the appropriate authority for reduction of levy of property tax. Without resorting to such a
Course, it is not open to the accused to prevent the complainant-Nattrampalli Municipality from proceeding with the attachment of the property as
contemplated under law. At the fag end of the argument, the learned Counsel Mr. Karthik represented during the last hearing that the government
has already acquired the properties and the property tax levied against the accused have already been adjusted from the sale proceeds. But there
is no material produced to show the same. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered orders of the
learned first appellate Judge in C.A. No. 43 & 8 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Vellore, to warrant any
interference from this Court. Point is answered accordingly.
In the result, Crl.R.C. No. 800 & 801 of 2005 are dismissed confirming the judgments in C.A. No. 43 & 8 of 2004 respectively on the file of
the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Vellore.