JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. 1. Maulvi Abdul Ghani has been convicted of an offence under section 69, sub-section 2, of Act No. I of 1900. The case for the prosecution is, that with intention to defraud the Board; he introduced within Octroi limits of the Municipality of Jhansi a tanned hide on the 14th May last. The evidence for the prosecution is of the most meagre description. There is evidence to show that a parcel was, on a date, which is not sworn to, made over to Abdul Ghani. There is not in the evidence a positive assertion that the exhibit “AA,” which has been filed in the case, is the receipt that was given for the parcel, but assuming that it is, the contents are described as a bundle of tanned leather. There is absolutely no evidence on the record showing that tanned leather is an article liable to pay octroi, when introduced within the Municipality of Jhansi. 2. The only evidence bearing upon the introduction is a statement by a witness, Suraj Sahai, to this effect: “I cannot tell when Maulvi Ghani (the accused) took the parcel, he must have taken it inside the Municipal limits.” At this point the witness evidently-felt some difficulty regarding the statement he was making, because he goes on to add “at last this is the presumption until he proves that he did not take it.” Had this evidence stood by itself, it is obvious that it is evidence upon which no conviction could be obtained. The prosecution seek to make this evidence effective by praying in aid the statement of the accused. He does admit having taken delivery of the parcel, the receipt of which is evidenced by the receipt, Exhibit “AA” but he adds “I did not take it within the Municipal limits, I disposed of it then and there to Shams-ud-din Ismail, shoe-seller, at the Railway Station.” Because the accused was a merchant and does not produce his books and says he has no memorandum of cash sales, the Courts below have drawn the presumption that it is proved, because his defence is false, that he has introduced the particular article, and that it is an article liable to pay octroi within the Municipal limits of Jhansi. The offence is an offence under a special Act and the guilt of the accused ought to be distinctly proved. The offence is an offence under a special Act and the guilt of the accused ought to be distinctly proved. In the present case I do not think the proof is sufficient. The case is one in which reliance has not been placed on the strength of the prosecution, but on the weakness of the defence, I set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the duty and fine, if paid, be refunded.