Judgment Ahmed Ali Khan, J.- There is substance in this appeal and it must succeed. The facts, briefly stated are: the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council Athani, launched a prosecution against Smt. Hajuma wife of Babu Zhdawale, for an offence under section 273 of the Mysore Municipalities Act, 1964. An objection was raised by the accused before the Court below with regard to the maintainability of the prosecution that, inasmuch as the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner had not been obtained as contemplated under section 330 of the Mysore Municipalities Act, the prosecution was unmaintainable. The Court below was of the view that the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner was obligatory under section 330 of the Mysore Municipalities Act and,since the complaint was not accompanied by such an approval, it was unmaintainable. It was argued on behalf of the appellant Town Municipal Council that the learned Magistrate has fallen into error in holding that the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner was essential or obligatory under section 330 of the Municipalities Act. It was contended that according to the proviso to section 330 (e) of the Mysore Municipalities Act, previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner is obligatory only for the offences mentioned in that proviso, viz., sections 58 and 241 of the Act, while in the instant case the accused was prosecuted for the offence under section 187 read with section 263 of the Act. It was argued that no such approval has been prescribed by the said proviso for an offence under section 187 read with section 263 of the Mysore Municipalities Act. We are of the opinion that there is substance in the contention. In section 330 (e) reference is made to more than one section of the Act, including section 276 of the Act. Then comes the proviso which reads: “Provided that the power conferred by section 276 to direct prosecution or to order proceedings to be taken for the punishment of any person offending against the provisions of the following sections shall not be exercised by the Chief Officer, except with previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner — Sections 78 and 241.” It is thus clear that the previous approval according to the proviso is required only for the offences which come under sections 78 and 241 of the Act. The restriction imposed by the Proviso is not applicable to the remaining sections reference to which is made in section 330 (e), which includes section 187 of the Act also. Evidently, the learned Magistrate was not right in his view that previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner was necessary in the case in which the prosecution is for the offence punishable under section 187, read with section 263 of the Mysore Municipalities Act. Therefore, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside, and it is so set aside. The case is remitted to the Court below for its disposal in accordance with law. S.V.S. ----- Aquittal set aside case remitted.