JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application in revision from an order of the learned-. District Magistrate of Aligarh upholding the conviction of one Radha Ballabh under Section 147 of the Municipalities Act. It appears that Ridha Ballabh is a resident of Hathras and has a house within the Municipality of that town. He had a kutcha chabutra in front of his house to which were added a masonry edging, and two masonry payas on the top without obtaining the sanction of the Municipality. The Municipal Secretary reported against the applicant in respect of the masonry edging of the chabutra only, upon which a notice was issued by the Municipal Board to the applicant on. 15th March 1913 under S. 87, Cl. 5, Act 1 of 1900, calling upon him to demolish the masonry edging of the chabutra within fifteen days of the receipt of the-notice. No mention was made by the Secretary in his report and no demand was made by the Municipal Board in the notice of 15th March 1913 with regard to the two payas built on the chabutra. The applicant did not remove the masonry edging of his chabutra as required by the Municipal Board in the notice of 15th March 1913. 2. The applicant was accordingly prosecuted and put on his trial before the Tahsildar Magistrate of Hathras who convicted him under S. 147, Act 1 of 1900 and fined him Rs. 10. On appeal the learned District Magistrate upheld the conviction. The applicant has come up in revision to this Court. He challenges his conviction on the ground that he has not infringed any of the bye-laws of the Municipality of Hathras. It should be observed at the outset that both the lower Courts have taken into consideration the erection of the two payas on the chabutra also on coming to a decision adverse to the applicant though the notice of 15th March 1913, contained no mention of the said payas. The existence of the said payas must therefore be left out of consideration in determining the guilt of the applicant. The learned District Magistrate has found that the construction of the masonry edging to the chabutra amounts to a material alteration. I am unable to agree with him as to his interpretation of what constitutes a material alteration. The existence of the said payas must therefore be left out of consideration in determining the guilt of the applicant. The learned District Magistrate has found that the construction of the masonry edging to the chabutra amounts to a material alteration. I am unable to agree with him as to his interpretation of what constitutes a material alteration. There has been no change in the shape or situation of the chabutra and I fail to see how the mere addition of masonry edging to the chabutra can be described as a material alteration of it. The learned District Magistrate remarks that it may involve an encroachment on the public road or may be the beginning of a superstructure. There is no evidence that any encroachment has been made on the public road or that the applicant has constructed the masonry edging with a view to building something on the chabutra. He one can be convicted of a possible offence which he might perhaps commit in future in regard to the Municipal bye-laws. I therefore allow the application, set aside the conviction and sentence of fine, and direct that the fine, if realized, be refunded.