JUDGMENT J.N. Takru, J. - The Municipal Board of Jhansi has filed this appeal by special leave, against the judgment and order of Sri K. P. Trivedi, City Magistrate, Jhansi dated the 8th January 1964, acquitting the respondent under Secs. 144 and 155 of the Municipalities Act and Rule 159 of the Municipal Account Code. 2. The report giving rise to this appeal was filed by the Executive Officer of the appellant - Municipal Board on the allegations that the respondent was the owner of the firm Padam Singh Ram Nath in the city of Jhansi. On the 4th March 1963 he took delivery of the consignment under R/R No. 26300 and brought it within the Municipal limits of Jhansi without complying with the requirements of Rule 159 of the Municipal Account Code and Secs. 144 and 155 of the Municipalities Act and as such he was liable to be punished for the contravention of the same. 3. The respondent pleaded not guilty. He admitted that he was a partner of the firm Padam Singh Ram Nath and that R/R No. 26300 was received by it. His case, however, was that the consignment covered by the said receipt was not brought within the Jhansi Municipal limits., but was sent from the Jhansi Railway Station to Barwasagar, a village in Jhansi sub-Division. 4. The appellant produced A. W. 1, R. S. Verma, A. W. 2, Hari Mohan, A. W. 3, Har Saran Pandey and A. W. 4 Ram Gopal to prove its case. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence of these witnesses, held that as the respondent was not an importer in relation to the goods covered by R/R No. 26300 he could not be held to have violated any of the provisions mentioned above, and on this finding he ordered to acquittal of the respondent. 5. On behalf of the appellant, its learned counsel Sri J. N. Agarwal, vehemently contended that on a correct appreciation of the evidence on the record, and the law applicable thereto, the aforesaid finding of the learned Magistrate was unsustainable and the order of acquittal was, therefore, unjustified. After hearing the learned counsel I am, however, of the opinion that this contention has no force, for reasons which I shall proceed at once to indicate. 6. After hearing the learned counsel I am, however, of the opinion that this contention has no force, for reasons which I shall proceed at once to indicate. 6. Now from the evidence of the appellants four witnesses, and the statement of the respondent, the following facts stand established:- 1. that the consignment under R/R No. 26300 was received at the Jhansi Railway Station on the 4th March 1963, and the gate-pass, bearing No. C-301215, was prepared, for the same, 2. that the consignment was, received from Messrs. Mahendra and Co., Ahmedabad, and was in favour of Messrs. Padam Singh Ram Nath of Jhansi, 3. that the delivery of the said consignment was taken by A. W. 4 Ram Gopal, an agent of the respondent, 4. that after taking delivery A. W. 4 Ram Gopal, in accordance with the instructions of the respondent, handed over the consignment to Rameshwar, who left with it for Barwasagar in his (A. W. 4's) presence, and 5. that the Jhansi Railway Station is outside the Municipal limits of Jhansi. 7. From the aforesaid findings it is manifest that the consignment under R/R No. 26300 was at no time brought within Municipal limits of Jhansi. Sri Agarwal, however, contended that as a gate-pass for the consignment was prepared it must, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, be taken as established that the consignment was brought within the Municipal limits of Jhansi. In my opinion no such conclusion can be drawn from the mere fact that a gate-pass in respect of the consignment was prepared. The evidence about the gate pass being at the best of a circumstantial nature has to be judged in accordance with the law applicable to circumstantial evidence, namely that its acceptance must lead to an other conclusion than that the consignment to which it related was taken out of the railway gate and brought into the Municipal area of Jhansi. For reasons, which are too obvious to be mentioned, it is not possible to draw such a conclusion. Besides the evidence of A. W. 4 Ram Gopal shows that the consignment, after delivery was taken straight from Jhansi Railway Station to Barawasagar. There is thus no evidence to show that the consignment in question was at any time brought within the municipal limits of Jhansi. 8. Besides the evidence of A. W. 4 Ram Gopal shows that the consignment, after delivery was taken straight from Jhansi Railway Station to Barawasagar. There is thus no evidence to show that the consignment in question was at any time brought within the municipal limits of Jhansi. 8. The next question to be considered is whether on this finding the respondent can be held to have contravened the provisions, of Secs. 144 and 155 of the Municipalities Act and Rule 159 of the Municipal Account Code? So far as Sec. 144 is concerned learned counsel frankly conceded that it had no application to the present case. It is, therefore, unnecessary to waste any time over it. So far as Sec. 155 is concerned, it provides for the penalty for the evasion of octroi dues. Under this section, "a person introducing or attempting to introduce within octroi limits, or abetting the introduction of any goods or animals liable to the payment of octroi for which the octroi due on introduction has neither been paid nor tendered shall be punished . . . ." 9. It will be noticed that the governing words in this section are "introducing or attempting to introduce within the octroi limits " On a plain reading these words mean that the goods or animals, liable to the payment of octroi, shall not be brought within the octroi limits from place outside them, without the payment, or the tendering of the octroi dues for the same. In other words there must be a physical introduction of or an attempt to introduce, goods or animals liable to payment of octroi, within the octroi limits of the Municipal Board. On the findings, recorded above, there has neither been any introduction of, nor an attempt to introduce, the consignment under R/R No. 26300 within the octroi limits of Jhansi. The acquittal of the respondent under Sec. 155 of the Municipalities Act was, therefore, rightly recorded, and has to be upheld. 10. The next question is whether the respondent can be held to have contravened Rule 159 of the Municipal Account Code. The acquittal of the respondent under Sec. 155 of the Municipalities Act was, therefore, rightly recorded, and has to be upheld. 10. The next question is whether the respondent can be held to have contravened Rule 159 of the Municipal Account Code. That rule, in so far as it is relevant for the present enquiry, reads as follows: - "When an importer receives the railway receipt of goods consigned to him by railway, he shall take or send it with the invoice or in the absence of the latter with a written declaration of the details of the consignment to the head octroi office, where, if the goods are found to be liable to the payment of octroi, the receipt or declaration shall be abstracted into a railway receipt and invoice register, to be kept up in form 52. The railway receipt and the invoice shall be stamped with a Municipal stamp and returned to the importer to enable him to obtain his good from the railway. The declaration shall be stamped and filed in to head octroi office." 11. The cardinal word in this rule, or which its interpretation hinges on the word importer. That word is however, not defined either in the Municipalities Act or in the Municipal Account Code, and consequently it has to be given its ordinary dictionary meaning. According to the Oxford New English Dictionary, `import' means "to bring in, to introduce from a foreign or external source", while "importer" means "one who or that imports or introduces, especially a merchant who brings in or receives goods from abroad." The basic idea underlying the words `import' and `Importer' therefore is the introduction of or the bringing into, or the receiving of goods from outside. Hence in rule 159 the word `importer' has to be read as a synonym for a person who introduces or intends to introduce or brings within the octroi limits goods from outside those limits. Thus interpreted a person does not become an importer by the mere fact of his receiving the R/R of goods consigned to him by Railway. He becomes an importer only if he, as stated earlier, introduces or attempts to introduce or intends to introduce, within the octroi limits goods consigned to him from outside those limits. Thus interpreted a person does not become an importer by the mere fact of his receiving the R/R of goods consigned to him by Railway. He becomes an importer only if he, as stated earlier, introduces or attempts to introduce or intends to introduce, within the octroi limits goods consigned to him from outside those limits. The contention of Sri Agarwal, that as under Rules 158(2) and 158 (3) of the Municipal Account Code even goods which are imported for immediate or eventual export have to be declared and dealt with under the appropriate rules, the word `importer' should be given a wide connotation so as also to include a person who receives a Railway Receipt, is fallacious. The scheme underlying the octroi rules appears to be that when person wishes to introduce any goods into the octroi limits, for use, consumption or sale therein, he has to observe the procedure laid down in Rule 159, and if he does not follow it he is guilty for its contravention. If however he introduces the goods not for use, consumption or sale within those limits, but with a view to exporting them, either immediately or ultimately, then he has to follow the procedures laid down in the rules meant therefor viz. Rules 191 to 207 in the former case and Rules 204 to 224 in the latter case. As the present case does not fall in any of the three categories mentioned above the respondent cannot be held to have committed breach of any of the rules of the Municipal Account Code and his acquittal must, therefore, be upheld. Thus for the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is correct. The result, therefore, is that this appeal fails and is dismissed.