JUDGMENT Sir John Stanley, Knight, C.J. and Banerji, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for alleged malicious prosecution. The defendant is one of two members of the Municipal Board of Banda who were charged with the supervision of the sanitation of the town. He made a report to the Secretary of the Municipal Board to the effect that dirty water was found by him to be issuing from the house of the plaintiffs, thereby causing danger to public health. The Secretary of the Board directed the prosecution of the plaintiffs, with the result that the Tahsildar, before whom the case was heard acquitted the accused. They thereupon instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. The first court gave a decree in the plaintiffs' favour and awarded them damages. Upon appeal the learned District Judge held that the defendant was entitled to the notice prescribed by section 49 of the Municipalities Act (I of 1900), and that no such notice was served, and accordingly dismissed the suit. Section 49 of the Municipalities Act prescribes that "no suit shall be instituted against a Board or against any member, officer or servant of a Board in respect of any act purporting to be done in its, or his, official capacity until after the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been, in the case of the Board, left at its office, and in the case of a member, officer or servant, delivered to him." In this case the lower appellate court has found that the defendant was a member of the Municipal Board, and that he reported to the Secretary of the Board that dirty water was allowed to flow from the plaintiffs' house into a public road. This was a matter of sanitation which the Board had deputed the defendant and another member of the Board to look after. The learned District Judge finds that the defendant purported to act in his capacity as member of the Board and that the notice prescribed ought to have been served. 2. We are of opinion that the District Judge was right in the view which he took. It is clear on the facts that defendant purported to act in his official capacity. 2. We are of opinion that the District Judge was right in the view which he took. It is clear on the facts that defendant purported to act in his official capacity. He merely gave notice to she Secretary of the Board of what he considered a nuisance, or objectionable, affecting the sanitation of the town; upon this report the Secretary of the Board took action. 3. Whether or not the plaintiffs were rightly acquitted on the charge brought against them, it is not for us to consider. We have only to decide whether or not the defendant purported to act in his capacity as municipal officer, and if we find that he did so purport to act, then it appears to us that he was clearly entitled to the notice prescribed by section 49. We are not called upon to decide whether or not the defendant rendered himself liable to damages for malicious prosecution, if he acted with malice or without reasonable or probable cause. All that we decide is that he was entitled to the notice prescribed by the Act and not having received that notice the suit is not maintainable. The case is unlike the case which has been relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellants; namely, that of Mohammad Saddiq Ahmad v. Panna Lal (1903) I.L.R., 26 All., 220. In that case the defendant did not purport to act in good faith in pursuance of the law, but he took advantage of his position as a police officer to commit illegal and tortious acts maliciously and without cause. That is a different case from the one now under consideration. In this case undoubtedly the defendant did purport to act as member of the Municipal Board charged with the supervision of the sanitation of the town of Bandu. The case is move like the case of Bakhtwar Mal Vs. Abdul Latif, (1907) ILR (All) 567 We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.