JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application for revision of an order convicting the applicant under S. 147, Act 1 of 1900, (the Municipalities Act). The Municipal Board, on 2nd July 1913, issued a notice to the applicant Ram Nath under S. 88 of the Act, directing him to pull down a chajja. As he did not comply with the notice he was prosecuted and the prosecution resulted in his conviction. He was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10, and to a daily fine of Re. 1. The last portion of the order, about daily fine, is clearly wrong and a reference has been made by the learned District Magistrate asking this Court to set aside this portion of the Magistrate's order. 2. As regards the conviction two paints have been raised. It is first contended that a notice under S. 88 could only be issued requiring a person to remove or alter a projection or structure overhanging, projecting into or encroaching on any street; and that there is no evidence in this case that the chajja built by the applicant projects into or overhangs any street or drain or sewer or aqueduct. This is so and the Magistrate did not try the case as a case of breach of an order lawfully issued upon notice under S. 88. The case was tried as if a notice had been issued under sub-S. (5), S. 87. As no such notice was issued the case could not be tried as one under that sub-section. Even if it be assumed that the notice was one under that sub-section, I am of opinion that the conviction cannot be supported. It appears that on 30th September 1912 the applicant Ram Nath gave notice to the Municipal Board of Muttra under S. 87 of the Act, of his intention to make the construction complained of. No notice of this was taken by the Municipal Board and on 28th November 1912, Ram Nath, by a written communication called the attention of the Board to its omission to make an order in respect of his previous application of 30th September 1912. No order was passed by the Municipal Board within 15 days of the receipt of this reminder of 28th November 1912 and it was only on 2nd July 1913 that the Board moved in the matter. No order was passed by the Municipal Board within 15 days of the receipt of this reminder of 28th November 1912 and it was only on 2nd July 1913 that the Board moved in the matter. Therefore fore under sub-S. (3), S. 87 the Municipal Board should be deemed to have sanctioned the construction which Ram Nath proposed to make. 3. It is said in the judgment of the Magistrate that the construction of the chajja took place on 3rd November 1912, that is before the expiry of the 15 days. But this finding is based only on a report of the overseer made to the Municipal Board. This report was not admissible in evidence. The overseer was not examined in this case and Ram Nath does not admit that he made the construction on 3rd November as alleged. Therefore there was nothing before the Magistrate to justify the conclusion that the construction had been made before the Municipal Board could be deemed under sub-S. (3), S. 87, to have sanctioned the construction. On this ground also the conviction is untenable. I allow the application and set aside the order of the Magistrate both as regards the fine imposed on Ram Nath and the daily fine which he was ordered to pay. Any portion of the fines, if paid, must be refunded. This also disposes of the reference made by the District Magistrate No. 244 of 1914.