JUDGMENT B.R. James, J. - This case raises a question of some importance with regard to the power of Municipalities in UP to collect toll, a toll being, as held in Hindustan Vanaspati Manufacturing Co. Ltd., v. Municipal Board Ghaziabad 1957 AWR (HC) 193 a tax imposable by a Municipality as consideration for its maintenance of roads and bridges which are likely to be used by vehicles. 2. Clause (vii) of Section 128(1) of the UP Municipalities Act (hearinafter referred to as the Act) empowers a Municipality to impose "a toll on vehicles and other conveyances, animals, and laden coolies entering the Municipality" while Section 153 lays down that matters like assessment or collection be regulated by Rules. The Rules framed in this behalf of the Municipality of Mainpuri (hereinafter termed the "Rules") are contained in a Notification of the State Government dated 3-3-1921, and are four in number. 3. Rules 1 and 3 run as follows: 4. Rule 1: "No person shall bring within the limits of the Mainpuri Municipality any laden vehicle or laden animal in respect of which a toll is leviable under Notification No. 1866/XXIII-97 of 31-1-1921 until the toll due thereof has been paid to such persons and at such barriers as the Board may from time to time appoint." 5. Rule 2: "When any laden coolie or any person in charge of a laden vehicle or laden animal wishes to pass a barrier such coolie or person shall pay the toll due to the Moharrir of the barrier...." Any breach of these Rules amounts to an offence u/s 299(1) of the Act, and is punishable under the penalty clause of the Rules which is in these words: Any breach of the Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 above shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 50/ - but shall in no case be less than ten times the amount due from the offender on account of the tax. 6. Like all Municipalities, the limits of the geographical area of the Municipality of Mainpuri have been defined by a Government Notification. By this Notification the goods-shed of the railway station of Mainpuri is included within the Municipal limits, but the station is excluded therefrom. A motorable road connects the station with the main inhabited area or 'abadi' of the town. Like all Municipalities, the limits of the geographical area of the Municipality of Mainpuri have been defined by a Government Notification. By this Notification the goods-shed of the railway station of Mainpuri is included within the Municipal limits, but the station is excluded therefrom. A motorable road connects the station with the main inhabited area or 'abadi' of the town. What the Municipality have done is to fix a toll-barrier on this road at a point between the railway goods-shed and the 'abadi', so that-any vehicle proceeding from the goods-shed to the abadi has to pass the barrier. Now, the present applicant is the driver of a motor truck. He is under contract coal from the railway goods-shed to the premises of the Company situated in the 'abadi'. On a certain occasion he was transporting a load of coal the toll-tax on which came to Rs. 6/12/ -, When he reached the barrier this amount was demanded from him by the barrier Moharrir but he refused to pay, whereupon he was prosecuted u/s 299(1) of the Act for a breach of Rule 1, found guilty by the trial Magistrate and fined Rs. 67/8/ -, which is exactly ten times the amount of the toll-tax claimed from him. His appeal before the Sessions Judge having failed, he has come up in Revision to this Court. 7. His principal contention is that since toll is leviable only when a laden vehicle is brought from outside the Municipal limits, and since he had brought the load of coal from the railway goods-shed, i.e., from within the Municipal limits he was not liable to toll-tax and has therefore been Wrongly convicted. 8. The contention is without doubt sound and must prevail This is made abundantly clear from a reading of the relevant provisions of the Act. Clause (vii) of Section 128(1), quoted above, unequivocally lays down that a Municipality is entitled to impose toll-tax only when the vehicle concerned enters its geographical limits. There is no provision which empowers it to charge toll from one which travels from one point to another within those limits. Clause (vii) of Section 128(1), quoted above, unequivocally lays down that a Municipality is entitled to impose toll-tax only when the vehicle concerned enters its geographical limits. There is no provision which empowers it to charge toll from one which travels from one point to another within those limits. This is made further clear from the wording of the first part of Rule 1 quoted above, It clearly follows that so long as the applicant drives his vehicle from, the goods-shed, Which is inside Municipal limits, to another point within these limits, that is to say, so long as he plies his vehicle within the Municipality, no toll can be demanded from him. 9. The learned Counsel for the State, repeating the arguments of the Courts below and relying on the second part of Rule 1 and on Rule 3, has argued that the applicant is bound to pay toll the moment he crosses the toll-barrier. This would mean that toll would be payable even if the starting point lay inside Municipal limits. But it goes without saying that no Municipality is authorised to frame any Rule or Bye-law which is inconsistent with the Act, whereas the learned State counsel's interpretation would be in direct conflict with Clause (vii) of Section 128(1), which empowers a Municipality to impose a toll only on a vehicle which enters its limits. Consequently this, interpretation cannot be accepted. 10. Learned Counsel has also a tempted to support his veiw-point from the judgment of Mr. Justice Walford of the late Oudh Chief court in AIR 1948 181 (Oudh) . In my opinion that case is easily distinguishable. There the offender had avowedly brought his vehicle into the limits of the Municipality from a place outside it, and his Lordship pointed out the startling absurdities that would result if he were made to pay the toll the moment he reached the Municipal boundary; accordingly his Lordship held that it was perfectly legitimate for toll to be demanded from him a when he reached the toll-barrier. In other words, since the offender became liable to toll on entering Municipal limits the only question was as to where he should pay it, and his Lordship decided that he must do it at the toll-barrier erected for the purpose. In other words, since the offender became liable to toll on entering Municipal limits the only question was as to where he should pay it, and his Lordship decided that he must do it at the toll-barrier erected for the purpose. The instant case is quite different, inasmuch as the applicant never entered the Municipal limits from outside but remained within them throughout. 11. Much has been attempted to be made of the apparent conflict between 128(1)(vii) of the Act and the first part of Rule 1 on the one side and the second part of Rule 1 and Rule 3 on the other. To my mind there is no difficulty in resolving the conflict if we bear in mind the fundamental question of the liability of the person concerned. When precisely does he become liable to pay toll? Quite obviously, the moment he enters the limits of the Municipality, as is made mand fest from both Section 128(1)(vii) of the Act ani the first part of Rule 1. There then remains only the question of the realisation of the tax. It is this which brings into operation the second part of Rule 1 and Rule 3. There may be insurmountable practical difficulties for the Municipality in fixing its toll-barrier exactly, on the boundary of the Municipal limits. Consequently, for its cm convenience and for the convenience of the tax-payers, it fixes the barrier at a suitable point, which in the instant case lies some distance within the Municipal boundary, and appoints staff to man it. A person driving a laden vehicle becomes liable to pay toll immediately he crosses the boundary, but it is on reaching the barrier that the actual payment of the Tax is made and this to a person appointed for the purpose. There is thus no real conflict between the provisions of law referred to above. It follows that so long as the applicant confines his laden vehicle to the limits of the Mainpuri Municipality as admittedly he has done, no toll can be demanded from him. 12. It has been argued that one result of this conclusion would be that the Municipality would be deprived of legitimate revenue by its inability to charge toll on coal imported into the town by rail. 12. It has been argued that one result of this conclusion would be that the Municipality would be deprived of legitimate revenue by its inability to charge toll on coal imported into the town by rail. There should be no difficulty in meeting this objections Who is the "person" who brings coal from outside into the goods-shed (Which is within Municipal limits). Obviously the Railway, by bringing their coal wagons from the main line (which is outside Municipal limits) into the goods-shed (which is within them). Plainly, it is the Railway from whom the toll should be charged. Indeed, I am informed that the sole reason why toll was demanded from the applicant instead of from the Railway was that the toll rates for motor trucks are much higher than those for railway wagons. Another solution would be for the Municipality to enter into an i arrangement with the Electric Supply Co. for payment of toll on coal trucks at an agreed rate. 13. In view of the above discussion it must be held that the applicant was not liable to pay the toll-tax and that this tax was wrongly demanded from him. Consequently his conviction and sentence must be set aside. 14. This Revision raised another point, a point which merits the attention both of the Municipality and of the State Government. This point stems from the above-quoted recital in the penal clause of the Rules. Under the first part of this clause Rs. 50/ - is the maximum fine which can be imposed on the offender. But the second part of the clause is worded in a manner which in many, instances would be in conflict with first part. The present case is illustrative of this. By virtue of the first part the applicant could not have been fined more than Rs. 50/ -, but the trial Magistrate applied the second part and fined him the minimum amount admissible under it, namely, ten times the toll of Rs. 6/12/ -, i.e., Rs. 67/8/ -, which is in excess of the maximum fine of Rs. 50/ - provided by the first part. It will also be noted that under the second part the Magistrate was entitled to impose a fine of much more than ten times the tax. 6/12/ -, i.e., Rs. 67/8/ -, which is in excess of the maximum fine of Rs. 50/ - provided by the first part. It will also be noted that under the second part the Magistrate was entitled to impose a fine of much more than ten times the tax. The two parts of the penal clause are manifestly inconsistent with each other, and any fine imposed under the second part in excess of the total of Rs. 50/ - would be immediately rendered illegal by the terms of the first part. It is plainly necessary for the penal clause to be amended. Let the Registrar of the Court bring this to the notice of the State Government. 15. For the reasons given above this Revision must be allowed, the conviction and sentence of the applicant set aside and his acquittal ordered. The fine if paid shall be refunded. 16. Revisions Nos. 55 of 1955, 440 to 519 of 1955 and 570 of 1955, eighty-two in number, raise identical points. For the reasons given in the present judgment all these eighty-two Revisions too must be allowed, the conviction and sentences of the applicants set aside and their fines if paid refunded.