JUDGMENT : Tudball, J. The facts of this matter are fully set out in the order of reference made by the Sessions Judge, It must be carefully noted that the facts found are that the accused unharnessed his horse from his carriage on the road side, placed the former in its stable and the carriage in the coach-house. There is no allegation that the vehicle stood for any considerable length of time upon the public road, so that it could be said that the accused was using this road as a halting place for his vehicle. The act of which complaint is made, is clearly not an offence under section 168 of the Municipalities Act. And as the accused cannot be said to have used the public road as a halting place for his carriage, the act could not possibly come within the language of section 170 of the Municipalities Act. On the merits, therefore, it seems to me, that the prosecution is entirely misplaced and a reference to the letter of the Chairman of the Municipal Board, dated the 26th of April, 1911, which is mentioned by the Sessions Judge, goes to show that the prosecution is at least contrary to the spirit of the resolution of the Municipal Board, No. 87 of 1911. It is extremely doubtful whether this resolution is of any force legally. The Board cannot by its resolution extend the scope of section 170 of the Act. As regards the institution of the prosecution, it is equally clear that Mr. Hazari Lal, Nazul Darogha, had no power whatsoever to make complaints of offences under section 170 of the Act. There was, therefore, no complaint within the strict meaning of the law before the court and the case ought to have been thrown out on this point alone. I accept the reference and set aside the conviction and sentence. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.