JUDGMENT Newaskar, J. This appeal is preferred by the President, Khargone Municipality u/s 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code after securing leave as required under that provision. Respondent Mr. G. K. Soni was prosecuted u/s 13 of the Bye-laws read with section 88 (2) of the M. B. Municipalities Act. The facts leading to this prosecution are that the respondent brought within the Municipal limits the Stage Carriage bearing No. M. B. P. 1566 on 18-12-1959 without payment of octroi duty Re. 340 on the value of the bug, Re. 34,000. A notice was issued to him under the orders of the President of the Municipality dated 31-12-1958 on 6-1-1959 calling upon the respondent to pay the octroi duty within 8 days. This was done when the matter with regard to the importing of the bus within Municipal limits was reported by the Octroi Inspector by his report dated 22-12-1958. The respondent paid no heed to it. Thereupon the President sanctioned the prosecution of the respondent for transgression of the Octroi Rules and Bye-law No. 13 requiring him to pay the octroi duty u/s 88 (2) of the M. B. Municipalities Act. The complaint was accordingly filed. The Magistrate tried the case as a Summons Case. The particulars of the offence were put to the respondent by the Magistrate who tried the ease on 4-8-1959 and he was called upon to show why he should not bet convicted. In answer to this the respondent stated that be had not imported the stage carriage in question and that it was being plied from Bhikangaon to Mandleshwar and it used merely to pass from Khargone Municipal limits as the same is in the way. He pleaded not guilty. The learned Magistrate, after hearing arguments, acquitted the accused relying upon the decision in Jethmal P. Heeralal AIR 1958 Raj, 48. In the aforesaid Rajasthan case reliance was placed upon section 21 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles (Taxation) Act, No. 11 of 1951, in support of the contention that it is not open for any Muncipality in Rajasthan to levy any tax or toll in respect of any motor vehicle. In the aforesaid Rajasthan case reliance was placed upon section 21 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles (Taxation) Act, No. 11 of 1951, in support of the contention that it is not open for any Muncipality in Rajasthan to levy any tax or toll in respect of any motor vehicle. That section is in the following terms:- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in force in -any part of Rajasthan, it shall not be lawful for any local authority to levy any tax or toll in respect of any motor vehicle. The learned Magistrate referred to section 22 of the M. B. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1949, which is similar in terms to section 21 of the Rajasthan Act quoted above. The respondent was accordingly acquitted holding that since no octroi duty was leviable he had committed no offence. The present appeal is preferred assailing the view taken by the learned Magistrate. It is urged on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Waghmare that the learned Magistrate has applied totally a wrong provision of law while acquitting the respondent. It was pointed out by him that on 1-11-1957 the Central Province and Berar Motor Vehicles (Taxation) Act, 1947, had been brought into force in the region of the State of Madhya Pradesh other than the Mahakoshal region. Section 6 of the Act which provides for the power of imposition of tax by any local authority is as follows:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment for the time being in force no local authority shall, after the commencement of this Act, impose or enhance a tax, toll or licence fee in respect of a motor vehicle and if any local authority has imposed such tax, toll or licence fee since before the 1st day of April 1942 and the same is still in force at the commencement of this Act any person who is liable to any such tax, toll or licence fee to such authority shall be deemed to have paid it. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall affect the imposition, enhancement or recovery of an octroi tax levied or to be levied thereafter by any local authority or a terminal tax levied and in force on the let January 1937 within the local area under the jurisdiction of any local authority. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall affect the imposition, enhancement or recovery of an octroi tax levied or to be levied thereafter by any local authority or a terminal tax levied and in force on the let January 1937 within the local area under the jurisdiction of any local authority. It is clear from sub-section (2) of this provision that the power created by subsection (1) as regards the imposition of a tax by any local authority so far as the motor vehicles are concerned is removed in respect of octroi duty. Since the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate was based upon application of a wrong provision of law the order is unsustainable. However, Mr. Chaphekar who appeared for the respondent, contended that the accused had pleaded not guilty and in view of the provisions of section 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to follow the procedure laid down therein. The case, therefore, ought to be remanded for trial in accordance with law. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent appears to be well founded. The respondent had not admitted that he had committed the offence particular whereof were put to him. In that situation it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to follow the procedure laid down in section 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The result is that the order of acquittal is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for trial and disposal in accordance with law in light of the observations made above.