JUDGMENT 1. This rule was issued on the Magistrate of the District to show cause why the conviction of and sentence passed on the Petitioner under secs. 270, 271 and 272 of the Bengal Municipal Act, III of 1884, as amended by Act IV (Bengal Council) of 1894 should not be set aside on the first two grounds stated in the petition. These two grounds are as follows :-- I. "For that the learned District Magistrate has not found all the facts necessary to constitute the offences under secs. 270, 271 and 272 of the Bengal Municipal Act ;" and II. "For that the prosecution is barred under sec. 353 of the Bengal Municipal Act." We will take up the charges under the three sections separately. 2. The charge under sec. 270 is that the Petitioner before us constructed a latrine in contravention of the provisions of secs. 230 and 231. Sec. 230 says :--"No person shall, without the written permission of the Commissioners construct or keep any latrine, etc., within fifty feet of any public tank or water course, or a tank or water course which the inhabitants of any locality use. The Commissioners may require any owner and occupier upon whose land any latrine, etc., so situated exists or may hereafter be constructed to remove the same within eight days." Sec. 231 provides: "No person shall, without the written permission of the Commissioners, construct a privy with a door or trapdoor opening on to any road or drain. The Commissioners may require any owner or occupier upon whose land any such privy exists to remove the same within eight days." 3. This prosecution under sec. 270 is regarding the construction by the Petitioner of a latrine in contravention of the provisions of secs. 230 and 231. Now sec. 353 of the Bengal Municipal Act lays down that no prosecution under this Act or any bye-law made in pursuance thereof shall be instituted without the order or consent of the Commissioners, and no such prosecution shall be instituted except within three mouths next after the commission of such offence, in which case a prosecution may be instituted within three months of the date on which the commission or existence of the offence was first brought to the notice of the Chairman of the Commissioners. This prosecution was started on a report made by the overseer on the 15th May 1900. The date of the occurrence given in that report is the 23rd November 1899, and the offences charged against the Petitioner is put down under sec. 270, cl. (3) and secs. 271 and 272 of the Act, first, "for constructing two privies with their doors and trap-doors opening on to S.B. Raha's Lane and its side drain without permission from the Commissioners;" second, "for neglect of the requisition issued under sec. 231 of the Act," and, third, "for making a drain leading into the public sewer without permission from the Commissioners." On this matter the evidence of the overseer is important. He says that he lives as a tenant under the accused, and that he occupied a house adjacent to the house in which the privies in question were built, from the 1st July 1899 to about September or October 1899, and in his examination-in-chief he states that the latrines were completed in July 1899. In cross-examination he adds that he made a verbal report to the Vice Chairman that the latrines were built and made in November 1899. 4. It is quite clear, therefore, that upon the evidence for the prosecution the Vice-Chairman certainly received information about the building of the latrines in November 1899, and that the employee of the Municipality, in other words, the officer who started the prosecution, was aware of the construction of the latrines in July 1899. There can be no question, therefore, that the construction took place in ore than six months before the prosecution was started. 5. An objection was taken by the Petitioner in the Courts below that the prosecution was barred by sec. 353 of the Bengal Municipal Act. That objection has been disposed of on the ground that the offence is a continuous one. We are of opinion that the offence under sub-sec. 3 of sec. 270, namely, the construction of latrines, cannot be regarded as a continuous offence. The nature of a continuous offence can be judged from a reference to sub-sec. 1 of sec. 270, e.g., if a person throws or puts, or permits his servant to throws or on any sewage or offensive matter on to any road and so forth, that would continuous offence. The nature of a continuous offence can be judged from a reference to sub-sec. 1 of sec. 270, e.g., if a person throws or puts, or permits his servant to throws or on any sewage or offensive matter on to any road and so forth, that would continuous offence. In our opinion the section has been misread by lower Court, and it has read by the lower Court, and it has been erroneously held that the construction if a latrine is a continuous offence, We think therefore is a that the conviction under sec. 270 arrived at by the. Honorary Magistrates was not well founded and must be set aside. 6. Then comes the question whether the conviction under sec. 271 is well founded. The Honorary Magistrates convicted the accused but do not say that any requisition was served on him which he disobeyed, nor do they say what the requisition was about There is some evidence on the record and also a document which is marked Ex. A calling upon the accused to fill up an excavation but whether in the opinion of the Magistrates that requisition was, as a matter of fact, served upon the accused, a requisition which he is said to have disobeyed, has not been at all mentioned in their judgment. In the absence of any finding or any material in the judgment to the effect that the Magistrates were satisfied as to the charges made against the accused, we are not in a position to maintain the conviction. A similar observation applies to the charge under sec. 272. It seems to us that the case in the lower Court certainly regarding the prosecution under secs. 271 and 272 has been very badly managed. On the materials before us we think that the conviction under those sections also cannot be maintained and must be set aside. We accordingly make the rule absolute and set aside the conviction of the Petitioner under all these sections, and direct that the fine, if levied, be refunded.