JUDGMENT : Rafiq, J. The applicant in this case is one Sat Narain Prasad, who has been convicted under section 46(a) of Act No I of 1891, under the following circumstances:— Sat Narain Prasad, is the owner of a house within the Municipal limits of Allahabad, but he does not live in it. That house was under repairs, and the masons and the workmen doing the repairs used the Municipal filtered water in their work. Thereupon the Municipal Board prosecuted Sat Narain Prasad, for using Municipal filtered water for other than domestic purposes. In his defence he pleaded that he had not himself used the Municipal filtered water for repairs nor was it used with his sanction or to his knowledge. It was also contended that the use of the Municipal filtered water for repairs was not excluded from the definition of “domestic purposes.” The learned Joint Magistrate convicted Sat Narain Prasad, and fined him Rs. 15, or in default one day's simple imprisonment. The same grounds as were urged in defence before the learned Magistrate are taken in revision before this Court. 2. I do not think that the contention with regard to the definition of domestic purposes is valid. It cannot be said that water used for repairs of a house is used for domestic purposes. But I think that the other contention of the applicant, namely, that he is not liable under section 46(a) of Act I of 1891, inasmuch as he did not himself use the water nor was it used with his knowledge or sanction must prevail. An act which imposes penalty is to be construed strictly, and section 46(a) expressly says that the person using the Municipal water is liable to a fine. The said section does not impose any penalty on the person on whose behalf the water is used. I, therefore, allow the application in revision, and setting aside the conviction and sentence I direct that the fine if realized be refunded.