Jagat Narayan, J.—This purports to be a criminal revision against an order passed, by a Magistrate of Ajmer under sec. 234 of the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation No. 6 of 1925, which runs as follows— "Any tax, water-rate or fee (other than a school fee) and any costs, damages or compensation, or other moneys payable to, or claimable or recoverable by, a Committee under this Regulation or any rule or bye-law may, after demand has been made therefor in the manner prescribed by rule, be recovered, on application to a Magistrate having jurisdiction within the limits of the municipality, or in any other place where the person by whom the amount is payable may, for the time being, reside, by the distress and sale of any movable property within the limits of such Magistrates jurisdiction belonging to such person. Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the Committee, at its discretion, from suing for the amount payable in any competent civil court. 2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no criminal revision lies against the above order under sec. 439 Cr.P.C. 3. The Ajmer Municipality issued a notice to the applicant asking him to carry out certain repairs to a wall under sec. 153 of the Regulation on 13.6.50. The repairs were not carried out in spite of several reminders. A notice was then served under sec. 220 of the Regulation that the repairs will be carried out at the expense of the Municipality and that cost will be recovered from the applicant after six hours after the service of notice. This notice was given on 3.7.50. In spite of this the applicant did not repair the wall. The Municipal Committee then got the necessary repairs carried out at their expense at a cost of Rs. 17,414/-. This sum became recoverable as a tax under the provision of sec. 222(4) of the Regulation. A notice of demand was issued on 1.4.52. Thereafter the Municipal Committee applied to the Magistrate under sec. 234 to recover the amount. 4. We are of the opinion that the Magistrate was not acting as an inferior criminal court in discharging his duties under sec. 234. 5. On behalf of the applicant the decision of the Judicial Commissioner Ajmer in Crown through Municipal Committee, Ajmer vs. Amba Lal son of Umra Singh (1) was cited. 234 to recover the amount. 4. We are of the opinion that the Magistrate was not acting as an inferior criminal court in discharging his duties under sec. 234. 5. On behalf of the applicant the decision of the Judicial Commissioner Ajmer in Crown through Municipal Committee, Ajmer vs. Amba Lal son of Umra Singh (1) was cited. This decision was followed by the court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer till it was abolished. We are unable to agree with the view taken in that case. We are of the opinion that the Magistrate acting under sec. 234 is a personal designata carrying out a ministerial duty. In any case he is not acting as an inferior criminal court, We are fortified in this view by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Madhodas vs. Rex (2), and the decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court in Lashkar Municipality vs. Shaha-buddin (3). 6. The preliminary objection prevails and the criminal revision is dismissed.