Judgment Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner has been convicted under Sec.192, Bihar and prissa Municipal Act and has been sentenced" to pay a fine of Rs. 100, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The case for the prosecution is that the petitioner started construction of a compound wall to his house without the necessary permission of the Chairman of the Purulia Municipality in the month of July, 1950. He was served, with a notice by the municipality to demolish the wall but the petitioner did not do so. 3. The defence which could be gathered from the records of this case is that the petitioner had made an application to the municipality on 4th July 1950, complaining against his neighbour who, by constructing some structure, was encroaching upon his lands. The petitioner wanted the municipality to stop the construction of his neighbours structure. No action was taken by the municipality, and the petitioner on or about 12th July 1950, after having waited for about a week or so, started construction of a compound wall to his house on the parti land. On 12th July 1950, the petitioner had moved the municipality for according sanction to the construction of a compound wall; but it appears that it was refused and he was asked to submit a regular complaint. On 27th July 1950, an application (Ex. 7) was made by the petitioner to the municipality for extension of time for carrying out the orders of the municipality to the effect that the compound wall constructed should be demolished. That application refers to the application filed by the petitioner on 4th July 1950. After he was refused sanction to construct a compound wall, he filed an appeal which (sic) was provided for in the Municipal Act; but before the disposal of that appeal, sanction to prosecute the petitioner was given on 16th September 1950, by the Chairman of the Purulia Municipality, 4. Both the Courts below have found that the petitioner had committed an offence because he had started construction of the compound wall without the sanction of the municipality, and, therefore, he had committed an offence under Sec.192 of the Act. 5. Mr. Both the Courts below have found that the petitioner had committed an offence because he had started construction of the compound wall without the sanction of the municipality, and, therefore, he had committed an offence under Sec.192 of the Act. 5. Mr. Mukherji, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that a compound wall is not covered by the definition of building or part of a building as given in the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, and that the appeal being pending before the Municipal Commissioners, no prosecution should have been started against the petitioner; and on that account the conviction of the petitioner was bad, and further that the order of the Court below directing demolition of the compound wall is without jurisdiction; and lastly, it was urged that the sentence was very heavy. 6. Sec.3 (1) defines building and Sec.3 (19) defines part of building. It is not contended before me that a compound wall is covered by the expression "building". It has been claimed by the prosecution, however, that a compound wall is part of a building. The question is if a compound wall of a house is included within the definition of part of a building. Sec.3(19) defines part of a building as "includes any wall, under ground room, or passage, verandah, fixed platform, plinth, staircase or doorstop attached to, or within the compound of, an existing building or constructed on ground which is to be the site or compound of a projected building". The definition of part of a building is very wide indeed, and, in my opinion, part of a building does cover a compound wall of a house. No direct authority has been placed before me to show that a compound wall is not part of a building as defined in the Act. Mr. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the opposite party has, however, referred to me a case -- Basant Kumar V/s. Chairman & the Municipal Commissioner of Giridih, 1 Pat 44. That case referred to the definition of a house as given in the Bengal Municipal Act (Act 3 of 1884) where the word House was defined by Sec. 6(4) of that Act which run as follows: House includes any hut, shop, ware-house or building". That Act was in force in Bihar also at the time when the case in -- 1 Pat 44, was decided. That Act was in force in Bihar also at the time when the case in -- 1 Pat 44, was decided. According to the definition of house, it was said in that case that if a compound wall were to be constructed as a part of the scheme for construction of a house, the wall will be a part of the house; but if a compound wall were to be constructed not as a part of the scheme for construction of the house, the compound wall will not be covered by the definition of a house. That case is not relevant to decide the point at issue but that shows that perhaps the decision in that case was the reason why the Bihar Legislature in 1922 gave a very wide definition of the word building and the expression part of a building. I must, therefore, hold that compound wall of a house is part of a building. 7. I do not find any substance in the second point as well. If the compound wall is part of a building, then under Sec.186, Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, a person has to give notice to the municipality of his intention to erect a compound wall, and if without such notice to the municipality the construction of the compound wall has been started, the petitioner has committed an offence under Sec.192 of the Act. The appeal, which he had filed against the order of the Chairman refusing to sanction his plan had nothing to do with the offence which he had already committed by starting construction of a compound wall without sanction. In that view of the matter, the mere fact that the appeal was pending against the order of the Chairman refusing to sanction his plan will not, in my opinion, affect the prosecution for the offence which the petitioner had already committed. The fact that the petitioner had filed an appeal for sanction and was pending at the time of the prosecution may, however, be taken into consideration in regard to the question of sentence. Mr. Mukherji has cited before me the decisions in -- Dwarka V/s. Patna City Municipality, AIR 1936 Pat 282 and -- Rampratap Lal V/s. Barh Municipality. The fact that the petitioner had filed an appeal for sanction and was pending at the time of the prosecution may, however, be taken into consideration in regard to the question of sentence. Mr. Mukherji has cited before me the decisions in -- Dwarka V/s. Patna City Municipality, AIR 1936 Pat 282 and -- Rampratap Lal V/s. Barh Municipality. 3 Pat L. T. 301 which were decided on facts entirely different and those cases are no authority for the proposition that if a man has committed an offence under Municipal Act, his conviction is bad because a certain appeal in regard to the sanction of the plan was at that time pending before the Municipal Commissioners. 8. In regard to the third point, I do not find that the Magistrate had any authority to pass the order which he has done for the demolition of the compound wall. At the end of his judgment he has directed the petitioner to demolish the wall constructed by him within one month from the date of the order. In the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act there is no provision authorising the Magistrate dealing with the prosecution of a person for having committed an offence under the Municipal Act to order demolition of a particular structure and their view was conceded to by Mr. Ghosh for the opposite party, I hold, therefore, that the order directing the petitioner to demolish the compound wall is absolutely without jurisdiction and must be set aside. 9. The only question which now remains is the question of sentence. I have indicated already that on 4th July 1950, the petitioner had made an application to the municipality drawing its attention to the fact that some of his neighbours were trying to encroach upon his lands by construction of some structures. No action appears to have been taken by the municipality. The petitioner might have well believed that if his neighbours were to proceed with the construction of a structure upon his land, he may have to go to civil Court which might take a very long time, and, therefore, he by the letter dated 4th July 1950, drew the attention of the municipality but he got no relief. The petitioner might have well believed that if his neighbours were to proceed with the construction of a structure upon his land, he may have to go to civil Court which might take a very long time, and, therefore, he by the letter dated 4th July 1950, drew the attention of the municipality but he got no relief. Then again he did apply for sanction of the compound wall as well as for other structures, and these facts, in my opinion, do show that the petitioner was acting in a bona fide manner believing full well that if he did not start his construction, he might be deprived of a part of his land because of the encroachment made upon it by his neighbour. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of fine is reduced to a sum of Rs. 15 only. 10. I would, therefore, dismiss this application with the modifications mentioned above. If the fine is not paid, the petitioner will have to undergo simple imprisonment for a month.