IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 CRL.A.No. 533 of 2005() ----------------------- ST.2193/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT. -------------------------- THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, PATTAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE. --------------------------------- 1. LEONS DAVID, CHUNGATHU HOUSE, S/O.DEVASSEY, P.O.PATTAMBI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl. Appeal No. 533 of 2005 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of 2011 . JUDGMENT This appeal arises from an order of acquittal. 2. Appellant is the Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary. A complaint was filed by the appellant against first respondent alleging offence under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Act read with Rule 27 of the Kerala Panchayat (Taxation and Appeal) Rules, 1996. Evidence was adduced by the prosecution and, after consideration of the evidence in detail, the trial court found the accused to be not guilty and acquitted him of all the offences alleged. 3. The impugned order was passed as early as on 31.8.2004, about 7 years back. The case was instituted in the year 2001, about 10 years back. Petition for leave was filed in the year 2005 and leave was granted as early as on 6.1.2005. Thereafter, the appeal came up for admission on 22.3.2005, more than 6 years back and it is coming up again for hearing on admission today. 4. The trial court considered the various aspects and rival [Crl. Appeal 533/2005] 2 contentions in detail in paragraphs 6 to 12. The evidence of PW1 shows that no attempt was made for attachment of any article from the house of the accused. Only if the distraint becomes impracticable that accused is liable to be prosecuted. But the evidence shows that no attempt was made for attachment of any article from the house of the accused. 5. Only if the distraint becomes impracticable the accused is liable to be prosecuted under Section 210. So, the complainant has failed to prove that the distraint has become impracticable. Since the evidence shows that no attempt was made for attachment from the residence of the accused it cannot be said that the distraint becomes impracticable. 6. In paragraph 11 of the impugned order, the trial court observed as follows: “Since the evidence shows that no attempt was made by PWs.1 and 2 for the attachment going to the residence of the accused it is to be accepted that movables were there in the house in which the accused was residing. But the evidence shows that no attempt was made for attachment of any article from the house of the accused. Only if the distraint becomes impracticable the accused is liable to be prosecuted. So the complainant has to prove [Crl. Appeal 533/2005] 3 that the distraint has become impracticable. Since the evidence shows that no attempt was made for attachment from the residence of the accused it cannot be accepted that the distraint became impracticable.” I do not find any perversity or infirmity in the above findings of the trial court. The findings are only reasonable and consistent with the evidence. Hence, there is no ground to admit this appeal. Appeal is dismissed. SD/- K.HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.