JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a revision against the judgment of One Munsif Magistrate of Jeypore convicting the Petitioner u/s 383(1)(a) of the Orissa Municipal Act, for contravention of Section 290(1)(w) of the said Act, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 40/-. 2. There was evidence on record to show that the Petitioner is the owner of a rice mill, with a 10 H.P. engine, located within the limits of Jeypore Municipality. He was prosecuted for having omitted to take out a license for the year 1960-61 on payment of the license fee and thereby having contravened Section 290(1)(a) of the Orissa Municipal Act. The prosecution was initiated on the complaint of the Executive Officer of Jeypore Municipality. 3. The facts are not in dispute and the main point of law urged by Mr. Sen, for the Petitioner is that for the purpose of considering whether there is contravention of Section 290(1)(w) of the Orissa Municipal Act it must first be affirmatively established by the prosecution that the necessary notification required by that sub-section has been duly published. Sub-section (1) of Section 290 says that the municipal council may notify that no place within the municipality shall be used without a license granted by the Executive Officer, for any of the purposes specified in the various clauses of that sub-section. One of the clauses is Clause (w) "using for any industrial purpose any fuel or machinery", and if the relevant notification under the aforesaid sub-section has been issued the use of the place for the said purpose without a license would undoubtedly amount to contravention of that sub-section. The second proviso to that sub-section further says: Provided further that no notification under this sub-section shall take effect till sixty days from the date of publication thereof. 4. The expression 'notification' has not been defined in the Orissa Municipal Act and consequently we have to examine the definition of the expression as given in Section 2(28) of the Orissa General Clauses Act which says "Notification shall mean a notification in the gazette". According to Section 2(16) of the Orissa General Clauses Act 'gazette' means the official gazette of the Province, namely the Orissa Gazette. According to Section 2(16) of the Orissa General Clauses Act 'gazette' means the official gazette of the Province, namely the Orissa Gazette. Hence, unless the Municipality first issues a notification as required by Sub-section (1) of Section 290 in the Orissa Gazette and a period of sixty days elapses from the date of publication of the notification in that Gazette, the notification cannot be said to have come into effect, and no question of contravention of Sub-section (1) of Section 290 arises. 5. Here, however, though the Municipality issued (sic) me sort of publication (ext. 2) from their office, no notification was issued in the Orissa Gazette. This was admitted by P.W. 1 the Inspector of the Municipality who stated that publication of ext. 2 was not made in the Orissa Gazette. Consequently, the statutory requirement about the notification has not taken place and ext. 2 cannot be said to have come into effect. The prosecution of the Petitioner for contravention of Sub-section (1) of Section 290 of the Orissa Municipal Act is therefore clearly misconceived, and the Petitioner is entitled to an acquittal. 6. Mr. Sen also raised a contention to the effect that he has already obtained a permit to run a rice mill at Jeypore under the provisions of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act 1958, and has paid the necessary fee under that Act and consequently he was liable to take out a license under the Municipal Act. According to him, by virtue of Section 25 of that Act, the provisions of that Act regarding the obtaining of a permit for the setting up of the rice mill impliedly over rule the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act relating to the obtaining of a license for the use of a 10 H.P. engine in the rice mill. It is not necessary to decide t his question here, in view of my decision on the first question of law mentioned earlier. It is left open for the aforesaid reasons the conviction and sentence are set aside, and the Petitioner is acquitted. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded him.