ORDER H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - Applicants Baladin Ram and Ram Nath were convicted by a Magistrate First Class u/s 466 of the UP Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. Baladin was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1000/- with three months simple imprisonment in default and Ram Nath to a fine of Rs. 400/- with three months' simple imprisonment in default. Baladin was further convicted u/s 467 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam read with Rule 159 of the Municipal Account Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The conviction and sentences of the Applicants were affirmed on appeal by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Varanasi : hence this revision. 2. The prosecution case in brief was as follows: Baladin Ram is the proprietor of Kashi Iron Foundry which is located in the vicinity of the Railway Goods Shed of Varanasi Cantonment station within the octroi limits of the Nagar Mahapalika. Ram Nath is an employee in the ' said Foundry. There is an octroi barrier near the Railway Goods Shed but the goods taken from the Goods Shed into the Foundry premises do not have to cross this barrier. The Foundry imported 23,550 kilograms of pig iron under the railway receipt No. 180353 the delivery of which was taken by Ram Nath from the Railway Goods Shed on 21-7-1964 and the goods were transported to the premises of the Foundry without payment of the octroi dues amounting to Rs. 315.57 Paise. Thus they made them-selves liable for punishment u/s 466 of the Adhiniyam. Under Rule 159 of the Municipal Account Code it was the duty of Baladin to have sent the railway receipt with the invoice or a written declaration of the details of the consignment to head octroi office for assessment of octroi dues and as he failed to do so he was punishable further u/s 467 of the Adhiniyam. 3. Under Rule 159 of the Municipal Account Code it was the duty of Baladin to have sent the railway receipt with the invoice or a written declaration of the details of the consignment to head octroi office for assessment of octroi dues and as he failed to do so he was punishable further u/s 467 of the Adhiniyam. 3. Baladin admitted that he was the owner of the Kashi Iron Foundry, that the Foundry was located near the gate of the Railway Goods Shed of Varanasi Cantonment station within the limits of the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, that the railway receipt was not sent to the head octroi office as required by Rule 159 of the Municipal Account Code, that the delivery of the consignment was taken at the said Goods Shed and the goods were taken to the premises of the Foundry by Applicant Ram Nath on his behalf without payment of the octroi dues and that there was also no compliance of the notice Exhibit Ka-1 given to Baladin by the Nagar Mahapalika. It was however, asserted by him that the octroi was paid on such goods which were taken inside the city from the Foundry crossing the octrio barrier. 4. Applicant Ram Nath admitted that he took the delivery of the consignment of the pig iron on behalf of Baladin his master and took it into the Foundry without payment of the octroi dues. 5. On behalf of the prosecution Sri R.N. Misra, Addl. Octroi Superintendent of Nagar Mahapalika was examined and he proved the entire prosecution case. 6. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicants. Two contentions have been raised in support of this revision, It is argued that after the execution of the agreement Exhibit Ka 4 dated 19-1-1960, the Foundry enjoyed the facility of a Bonded Ware House, since it has deposited a sum of Rs. 3000/- with the Nagar Mahapalika in terms of the agreement and in the past Nagar Mahapalika authorities never charged octroi dues on the goods received in the Foundry because they treated the factory of the Applicants for all practical purposes either as if outside the limits of the city or Nagar Mahapalika or as a unit enjoying the benefits of a Bonded Ware House. 7. 7. It was said before the courts below that no octroi barrier could be actually established at the gate of the Foundry as was envisaged in the agreement because the Foundry did not provide proper accommodation for the establishment of such a barrier in accordance with Rule 208 of the Municipal Account Code. It is, therefore, obvious that by depositing a sum of Rs. 3000/- with the Nagar Mahapalika the Applicants could not get the benefit of the agreement unless an octroi barrier was established at the premises of the Foundry for checking their goods and assessing octroi duty thereon in accordance with the agreement. It is admitted that no octroi duty was paid to the Mahapalika for importing goods within the premises of the factory. That being so, Applicants cannot escape the liability on the basis of the agreement Exhibit Ka-1 the terms of which were never implemented by them. 8. If the Nagar Mahapalika treated the factory in the past as outside its limits and did not charge octroi duty on goods arriving there for some reason or the other it cannot create an estoppel against them. Once the goods are admitted to have been brought within the octroi limits of the Mahapalika it was incumbent on the Applicants to have paid the octroi charges on the same. The conviction of the Applicants for failure to do so is, therefore, fully justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The octroi dues amounted to Rs. 315.57 Paise. In my opinion, therefore, the fine imposed on Baladin under the two counts is not excessive. 10. As regards Ram Nath he is an employee of the Foundry and must have taken the goods without payment of the octroi dues to the Foundry under the directions of his master Applicant No. 1. A fine of Rs. 100/- in his case will, therefore, meet the ends of justice. 11. Accordingly I affirm the conviction and sentences of Baladin under the two counts as recorded by the trial Magistrate. I also affirm the conviction of Ram Nath as recorded by the trial Magistrate but reduce the fine in his case from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 100/- only. In default of payment of fine Ram Nath will undergo one month's simple imprison-merit. 12. With this modification in the sentence of Ram Nath the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.