JUDGMENT George Knox, J. - Shiam Lal has been convicted u/s 147 of Act I of 1900, and sentenced to pay a flue of Rs. 10. The rule which he is considered to have broken is apparently contained in paragraph 5 of a paper which is on the record. That paper runs thus: "The Municipal Board of Muttra hereby requires with reference to Section 87 of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh Municipalities Act I of 1900 that applications for building new houses or adding to existing ones may be sanctioned by the Public Health Sub-Committee only on the following conditions". Condition No. 5 is: "no projection shall be allowed in any lane whose width is less than 12 feet." If this be a rule as authorized by Section 128B of the same Act, any such disobedience of such rule would be an offence u/s 147. 2. No other rule has been pointed out. I have gone carefully through the so-called rules but I do not find anything in them which in express terms requires the public to obtain previous sanction to the erection or re-erection of any building. It almost looks as if there were some rule or rules in existence which prohibits or prohibit persons is Muttra from erecting or re-erecting any building without previous sanction obtained. No such rule has been pointed out but it is contended that the case falls u/s 87, Clause (a), and I have to consider whether the act of the accused amounts "to erect or re-erect any building, abutting on or adjoining a public street, or any public place or property vested in His Majesty or in the Board," 3. The words or expression "erect" or "re-erect" is defined in Clause 9 of Section 3 of the Municipalities Act, I of 1900. It is true that Clause 9 is not exhaustive but it may fairly be taken as a guide to the nature of acts which fall within the words of "erect" or "re-erect" a building. The construction complained of is a covered-in balcony. There existed on the same spot a balcony of same kind and what the accused appears to have done is to have dismantled his old balcony and erected in its place the present covered-in balcony. The construction complained of is a covered-in balcony. There existed on the same spot a balcony of same kind and what the accused appears to have done is to have dismantled his old balcony and erected in its place the present covered-in balcony. Such an act certainly amounts to an alteration of a building, but I am not satisfied that it amounts to a material alteration or enlargement of any building. 4. I understand that the additional space enclosed by the new building exceeded the old by three inches by a length which may amount to five feet. I am fully aware of the inveterate habits of this country of adding inches and some times more than inches when balconies or chabutras are re-erected, but in the present case, I am unable to hold either that it is a material alteration or enlargement. 5. I accordingly set aside the order of the Bench of Magistrates. The fine, or any part of it, if paid, will be refunded.