Order The offence with which the petitioner who is accused 1 was charged was that there was disobedience by him to the provisions of section 32 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act which directs every trustee of a public trust registered under the Act to maintain regular accounts section 66 makes disobedience to section 32 an offence. Accused 1 contended before the Magistrate that he was not a trustee, and that he was not therefore under any duty to maintain the accounts of the trust. The Magistrate thought that the controversy with respect to the question whether accused 1 was a trustee or not could not be resolved by him, and so he stated this in paragraph 5 of his judgment: “The question as to whether or not A-1 is a trustee cannot be gone into in this proceeding as submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I think this submission has got to be accepted. This Court is not expected to enquire in detail as to whether A-1 is a trustee or not. It is sufficient if the prosecution prima facie establishes that A-1 is a trustee.” The Magistrate then proceeded to examine the question whether prima facie accused-1 was a trustee and he reached the conclusion that he was. He next recorded a finding that the accounts were not maintained as required by section 32, and so, a technical offence had been committed. He convicted all the five accused of the offence with which they were charged. It is clear that the conviction of accused 1 cannot be sustained since the Magistrate declined to investigate the question whether accused 1 was in truth a trustee. In a prosecution under section 32 read with section 66 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, the prosecution has to affirmatively establish by production of positive proof that the accused was a trustee of a public trust registered under the Act. If the accused denies that he is one, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that he was. If the Magistrate declined to investigate the question whether accused-1 was a trustee and stated in his judgment that he would desist from making that investigation, it became impossible for him to say that any offence had been committed by accused-1, since no offence could be said to have been committed by him unless it is proved that he was a trustee. So I allow this revision petition and set aside the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed on him. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded. S.V.S.-----Revision Petition allowed.