JUDGMENT Holmwood, J. - By a notice, dated the 16th of August 1905, the Petitioners were required in accordance with the resolution of the General Committee of the Calcutta Corporation, dated the 28th July 1905 to carry out all the improvements specified in Sch. A attached to the said notice in so far as they relate to the part of the bustee owned by them, within three months. This notice was addressed to the owners of the bustee at No. 42, Amherst Street. The Sch. A which was attached to it was headed Ward No. 9, 45, Amherst Street, and evidently refers to a much larger collection of bustees than the premises at No. 42, Amherst Street. Be that as it may, the effect of the notice was to order the Petitioners to carry out the whole of these works which include-huts to be removed, huts to be partly removed, tanks and low lands to be filled in, streets, passages and drains to be constructed, latrines and bathing platforms constructed, filtered water supply and unfiltered water supply. It appears that the Petitioners who were the recent purchasers from the Administrator-General without any notice of the proposed bustee improvements did not take any action for some months. It is obvious that they could not very well start doing all this work which was not their business to do without going to the Municipal Office and seeing the standard plan. It appears to me that if the Municipality think it right to issue a general notice of this kind to one of several owners of a butsee, they should at least furnish him with a copy of the standard plan and point out to him on that plan what he is himself to do. As it is, the Petitioners succeeded in obtaining a copy of the standard plan from the Municipality sometime in November, that is, just about three months after their purchase. Having studied that plan they wrote to the Municipality and said that as far as they could understand, all that they were required to do was to widen a certain road or rather widen the existing Muncipal sewered ditch so as to make it into a road and to pull down such portion of the existing huts which would fall within the line of the proposed road when so widened. They very rightly pointed out that that was the work of the Corporation and the General Committee have, evidently by a resolution, but also in the letter of the Deputy Chairman, admitted that the Petitioner was in no way concerned with the widening of this road. There, one would imagine, would be an end of the matter or if the Corporation still considered that there was work which the Petitioner was bound to do and if they wished to institute a criminal prosecution against him, the only course open to them was to issue a revised notice under sec. 408 stating what was to be done. No revised notice was issued, but the Petitioners offered to place the land free of charge at the disposal of the Municipality to make any improvement they wished. This was declined and a letter was issued by the Deputy Chairman, not under sec. 408, stating that the works to be done by the complainants were (1) to leave six feet space between hut No. 24 and the pucca building on the west; (2) to construct three surface drains; (3) to remove three existing privies; (4) to remove the portions of huts Nos. 24 and 25 which fall over the proposed widenings of the sewered ditch. Now it may be that it is the Petitioner's duty to do these things and that he has neglected to do it; but I am asked to uphold a conviction under sec. 408 of the Municipal Act for disobedience to a notice issued under that section. Looking at the notices under that section I cannot find any one of these items. It is mentioned that several huts will have to be pulled down, several huts have to be partially removed, several surface drains to be constructed, several existing privies will have to be removed, and it is also noticed that it is the duty of the Municipality to put other common latrines in their places which I observe has not been done, and it is one of the grounds of the present Petitioner that he objected to remove the present existing privies and very rightly so. The duty of the Corporation in improving bustees is a most important one and they have been invested with the most ample powers, but when certain penal sections enforced by the criminal law are put in motion on the report of the servants of the Municipality, it is incumbent on the Magistrate and the authorities of the Corporation to see that the legal procedure which is a condition precedent to any conviction, is strictly and properly carried out. As I find that no notice under sec. 408 was issued on this Petitioner directing him to specifically carry out the works for neglecting to do which he has now been punished, I have no option but to set aside the conviction and sentence, and direct the fine, if paid, to be refunded.