JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Petitioner stands convicted u/s 383 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for carrying on dangerous and offensive trade of manufacturing Gudakhu at Manikghose Bazar within the Municipal limits of Cuttack town, without a licence from the Municipal authorities as required u/s 290(1)(k) of the Act, and he has been sentenced thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 51/- in default to undergo S.I. for 15 days. 2. Both the Courts below found that the Petitioner was manufacturing Gudakhu at Manikghose Bazar during the year in question without a licence. The Court below also found that the Petitioner had not made any bona fide application for licence to manufacture Gudakhu at Manikghose Bazar and so it would be idle to speculate that if the Petitioner had applied for a licence the Municipality would have refused it on account of its earlier resolution prohibiting manufacture of Gudakhu within the Municipal limits of the Cuttack town. 3. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the outset urged that in the complaint petition filed on behalf of the Municipality Manikghose Bazar was shown as a prohibited area and so the Municipality was not legally competent to grant any licence for manufacturing Gudakhu in the said prohibited area and as such the Petitioner could not be prosecuted and convicted for not applying and/or obtaining a licence for manufacturing Gudakhu in that area. 4. Mr. Rath, the learned Counsel for the opposite party, repelled the above contention of Mr. Mohanty on the submission that the provisions of Section 290(1)(k) of the Act does not totally prohibit manufacture of Gudakhu in an area fixed and notified u/s 290(1). The said section merely prohibits the use of any such place for any of the purposes enumerated thereunder without a licence to that effect. Section 290(1)(k) is as follows: 290(1). Mohanty on the submission that the provisions of Section 290(1)(k) of the Act does not totally prohibit manufacture of Gudakhu in an area fixed and notified u/s 290(1). The said section merely prohibits the use of any such place for any of the purposes enumerated thereunder without a licence to that effect. Section 290(1)(k) is as follows: 290(1). The Municipality council may notify that no place within the Municipality as may be fixed by it shall be used without a licence granted by the Executive Officer and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such licence, for any one or more of the following purposes, namely: (k) manufacturing or distilling sago or keuda water, manufacturing artificial manure, manufacturing or refining Sugar, manufacturing sugar candy or jaggery, tanning or manufacture of leather or leather goods, manufacturing lac and manufacturing bidis or cigars or gudakhu. It is evident from the above that manufacturing and distilling any of the articles mentioned in Clause (k), which includes manufacturing Gudakhu, is ordinarily forbidden in the places fixed by the Municipality by a notification u/s 290(1), but one can manufacture any such article inside that place with a licence granted by the Executing Officer to that effect and in accordance with the conditions specified in that licence. Thus it cannot be said that once an area is notified u/s 290(1) of the Act, manufacturing Gudakhu or any such article within that area is totally banned, and the Municipal authorities were not legally competent to grant a licence to manufacture any such thing in that area. Rather the aforesaid section provided that if one wants to manufacture any such things mentioned in Clause (k) in an area so fixed and notified by the Municipality, he must apply for a licence and on obtaining the same he can manufacture such things within that area, of course in strict accordance with the terms and conditions laid down is the said licence. Section 290(1) does not speak of a ?prohibited area? nor does it state that Municipality cannot permit any body to use the places, fixed and notified under that section, for any of the purposes mentioned thereunder. The reference to the ?prohibited area? in the complaint petition is of no avail or effect to the Petitioner in view of the Resolution of the Municipality dated 25-1-1964 (Ex. 3), notified in the Orissa. Gazette dated 31-1-1964 (Ex. 2). The reference to the ?prohibited area? in the complaint petition is of no avail or effect to the Petitioner in view of the Resolution of the Municipality dated 25-1-1964 (Ex. 3), notified in the Orissa. Gazette dated 31-1-1964 (Ex. 2). The present case was instituted against the Petitioner in 1965, for manufacturing Gudakhu within the Municipal limits of the Cuttack town during 1964.65 without a licence. By that time the above Resolution notified in the Gazette had come into effete, as the same took effete from 1-4-1964, as specifically mentioned in the notification. The above Resolution and notification are to the effect that any body using or intending to use any place within the Municipal limits of the Cuttack town, for any of the purposes mentioned therein in the schedule, can do so only by obtaining a licence to that effect and in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the licence; and any body using any place within the said Municipal limits for any such purpose without a valid licence will be liable to be punished under the law. The Petitioner, on the finding of the Court below, had not applied and/or obtained any such licence, though he was actually manufacturing Gudakhu at a place within the Municipal limits of the Cuttack town. Accordingly his conviction u/s 383 of the Act is well founded. On the above view of the matter, the contention put forward by Mr. Mohanty is without any force. 5. Mr. Mohanty next contended that the relevant notification u/s 290(1) has not been properly proved and exhibited in this case and the original Resolution of the Municipal Council contained in the Resolution Book produced from the Municipal office, though marked as Ex. 3, has not been signed by the Magistrate. The relevant notification published in the Orissa Gazette dated January 31, 1964, is marked as Ext. 3; though in the evidence and in the impugned judgment the said notification has been referred to 0.8 Ext. 2. This notification of the 31st January, 1964 was produced by p.w. 4 in this case on 20.1.1967, and on his evidence it was to be exhibited as Ext. 2. This notification begins at page 221 of the Gazette, but the marking (Ext. 2) with the signature of the Magistrate and the date were put at the top of page 225 of the Gazette. 2. This notification begins at page 221 of the Gazette, but the marking (Ext. 2) with the signature of the Magistrate and the date were put at the top of page 225 of the Gazette. Patently the contents of page 225 are absolutely irrelevant for this case, as they relate entirely to different other matters published in the said gazette. At the top of page 227, which contains the relevant notification, the marking Ext. 2, written in black ink, has been scored through, and in its place Ext. 3 has been written in red ink, and underneath the same there appears the signature of the Magistrate and the date (20-1-1967). Thus the relevant Gazette notification was actually required to be marked as Ext. 2, some how it has been marked as Ext. 3. The noting and markings in the original document, containing the Resolution in original, are as follows: Case No. 144-C/3 of 1965 Ext. 3 Magistrate 20-1-1967 It is seen from the above that the Magistrate?s signature has not been appended to at its proper place. But it is seen from the deposition of p.w. 4 that he proved the aforesaid original Resolution on 20-1-1967, and it was marked Ext. 3. That being so there is no doubt that the original Resolution contained in the aforesaid book was duly proved and exhibited as ?Ext. 3, though somehow the Magistrate did not put his signature at the relevant place. This document Ext. 3 was admitted in evidence without any objection, as found by the Court below. From the above it Is evident that though the above mentioned documents were properly proved and exhibited by the prosecution, they were not properly signed and/or marked In the Court below, which speaks only of carelessness and negligence on the part of the Court below. But merely because of such mistakes on the part of the Court below these documents, properly proved and exhibited by the prosecution, cannot be rejected from consideration. Thus there is no force in the above contention of Mr. Mohanty. 6. On the above considerations the conviction of the Petitioner is well founded. There is, therefore, no merit in this revision, which is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed