ORDER S.D. Singh, J. - This is an application u/s 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an order of retrial passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ghazipur being quashed. 2. The Applicant was prosecuted u/s 299(1) of the UP Municipalities Act in respect of certain encroachments which he was alleged to have made within the Notified Area of Mohammadabad in district Ghazipur. He was tried in the court of the Tahsildar-Magistrate, Ghazipur, who convicted hi n for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 50/- . The Applicant went up in appeal which was heard by the Assistant Sessions Judge, who found a number of irregularities in the trial and as a result thereof set aside the conviction and directed a retrial in accordance with law. It is against this order that the Applicant has come up to this Court and wants the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 561-A aforesaid, which can be exercised only to prevent an abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. I find neither of the two circumstances present in this case. 3. It is certainly true that the Applicant will have to undergo a fresh trial which may not have been absolutely necessary and the offence also does not appear to me serious enough, inasmuch as he was, on his conviction, fined only Rs. 5/- , but it is a case of encroachment on public land; and if such encroachments remain unpunished, it is the public who will suffer and the disadvantageous position in which the public is put on that account is not of temporary, but of a permanent nature, because once a person is acquitted of that offence the encroachment becomes permanent; and though it may in course of time grow in size, there is no possibility of its shrinking to even a small extent. 4. Reliance was placed by the Learned Counsel on two decided cases. One of them is Machander Vs. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 792 but the facts of that case were quite different. In that case the accused was being tried u/s 302 of the IPC. There was some irregularity in the examination of the accused u/s 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of which his conviction was set side by the Supreme Court. In that case the accused was being tried u/s 302 of the IPC. There was some irregularity in the examination of the accused u/s 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of which his conviction was set side by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to direct a retrial not because a retrial is something which is always to be abhorred, but because in that particular case the accused had already undergone confinement for a perriod of four and a half years. In the case before us there is no question of confinement as the Applicant was never in jail. 5. In the other case Nanhe Lal Vs. Emperor, AIR 1925 All 301 , Mukerji, J. has observed that the smallness of the sentence inflicted indicated that the offence was not a serious one and that the convicted person has generally undergone some punishment even in appearing and defending himself and having regard to that circumstance it was not desirable to have a re-trial. It is true that in this case also the Applicant was fined only a sum of Rs. 50/- and to, that extent this decision may have some bearing upon the facts of this case also. But it is to be remembered again that the acquittal in this case would give a seal of approval to the alleged encroachment which the Applicant is said to, have made. It is not a case in which the Applicant might have removed the encroachments and then come to Court that after all the encroachment has already been removed and whatever irregularity committed by him was of a, temporary nature of which the law may not take a serious notice. 6. The next case relied upon was. Executive Officer, Municipal Board Vs. Harsaran Das, AIR 1940 All 19 in which Mulla, J. has taken a view which is summarised in the head note on page 20: But it is not advisable or necessary to direct a retrial in, a case in which the prosecution has been launched not with any desire to vindicate the law in the public interest but only with a view to, humiliate the accused who has been sufficiently punished for the offence committed by him, by having had to undergo, the trial and the interests of the public have been sufficiently protected for future. I have no, hesitation, in, agreeing, respectfully with, the observations of Mulla, J. in this respect. If a prosecution is aimed at, humiliating an accused person, the view taken by him would necessarily be the correct view in the case but as is indicated in, the observations of Mulla, J. himself, if a prosecution has been launched with a view to vindicate the law in public interest the conclusion would be different. Where a Municipal Board prosecutes a person in respect of an encroachment which is alleged to have been made by him on a public road or a public drain, the prosecution is necessarily one which is to vindicate the law in the public interest. 7. The application is dismissed. The stay order is vacated.