JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Notified Area Council, Aska, is the Petitioner in this revision. The opposite party who constructed a new pucca house with cement concrete projection covering a portion of the road at Subarnopeta without prior sanction of the Council has been convicted and sentenced u/s 385-A of the Orissa Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to 808 the Act) to pay a fine of Rs. 30/- in default to S.I., for ten days. 2. The only contention put forward by Mr. Patnaik, the learned council for the Petitioner, is that on the facts of this case the trial Court erred in law in imposing only a lump-sum fine of a paltry sum of Rs. 30/-, without imposing in addition to the above, an appropriate daily fine for each day during which the offence continued after its detection, as per the provisions of Election 385-A of the Act. 3. Section 385-A of the Act inter alia provides that a person on conviction shall be liable to pay a fine which may extend in the case of a building to Rs. 500/ - and to a further fine of Rs. 100/- for each day during which the offence is proved to have continued after the first day. The first day in his case is the date on which the contravention was detected. On the words "during which the offence is proved to have continued after the first day" occurring in the last portion of Section 385-A of the Act it was the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offence continued for a particular period a after the date of the offence continued for a particular period after the date of the detection of the contravention. The present case proceeded and culminated only on the basis of the facts that the Health Inspector, Aska N.A.C., detected on 20-9-1966 that the opposite party herein without prior sanction of the N.A.C., had constructed a new house with cement concrete projection covering a portion of the road causing inconvenience to the movement of the vehicle and others. There is no evidence or finding in this case BS to whether the said unauthorised structure continued to exist after the aforesaid date till the commencement of the prosecution or for any specified number of days after the aforesaid first day. There is no evidence or finding in this case BS to whether the said unauthorised structure continued to exist after the aforesaid date till the commencement of the prosecution or for any specified number of days after the aforesaid first day. Under such circumstances no daily fine can be imposed in this case. This view gets support from a decision of this Court in Rajballav Misra v. Executive Officer Notified Area Committee New Capital Bhubaneswar 1956 (22) C.L.T. 202 . 4. In this case the N.A.C. or the authorities concerned find that the said unauthorised construction is continuing in the same offensive manner, a fresh prosecution may be, instituted for it, after specifying the exact number of days during which the offender is proved to have persisted in the offence-see Marchia Oram v. The Executive Officer N.A.C. Rourkela 1967 C.L.T. 350. 5. On the findings of the Court below and on the evidence on record no daily fine as prayed for by the Petitioner can be imposed in this case. The revision accordingly is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed