ORDER P.N. Bakshi, J. - This appeal has been filed by Nagar Mahapalika Agra against the acquittal of the opposite party Noor Mohd. by the order of the Magistrate First Class, Agra dt. 8-10-1970. 2. The opposite party was prosecuted for an offence u/s 257 read with Section 460 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam 1959 on the allegations that he had constructed privy in the open space on the public road without the permission of the Nagar Mahapalika The opposite party denied the allegation and claimed that the privy was very (sic) and that no new construction had been made by him without the sanction of the Nagar Mahapalika. 3. The prosecution in support (sic) case examined 5 witnesses, namely, (sic) Uddin PW1, Ravindra Mohan (sic) PW 2, Gur Prasad PW 3, Lala Ram PW 4 and Jas Ghand PW 5. The opposite party in his defence examined four witnesses, namely, Jai Ghand DW 1, Shaukat Khan DW 2, Mohd Yasin Khan DW 3 and Kaley Khan DW 4. 4. The short point on which the opposite party has been acquitted by the court below is that the complaint filed against the opposite party by the Nagar Mahapalika Agra for the alleged offence was barred by time, in view of Section 493 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. 5. I have heard learned, counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. The undisputed facts are that a notice u/s 257 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam was given by the Nagar Swastha Adhikari to the opposite party on 18-9-1968. This notice was served by fixation on the opposite party on 3-10-1968. A reply to the notice was sent by the opposite party to the Nagar Mahapalika on 25-10-1968. The present complaint for prosecution of the opposite party for an offence u/s 257 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam was filed in the court of the City Magistrate Agra on 24-4-1969. On these sets of facts the court below held that it was quite clear that the offence complained of came to the notice of the Nagar Mahapalika Swastha Adhikari on 18-9-1968, if not earlier. The present complaint, having been filed more than six months after this notice, was barred by time. 6. On these sets of facts the court below held that it was quite clear that the offence complained of came to the notice of the Nagar Mahapalika Swastha Adhikari on 18-9-1968, if not earlier. The present complaint, having been filed more than six months after this notice, was barred by time. 6. Section 493 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam runs thus: No Magistrate shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rule, regulation or bye-law, unless complaint of such offence is made before him-- (a) Within six months next after the date of the commission of such offence; or (b) if such date is not known or the offence is continuing one within six months next after the commission or discovery of such offence. It is implied in the notice sent by the Nagar Swastha Adhikari on 18-9-1968 to the opposite party that he had knowledge of the commission of the offence alleged on that date, if not earlier. The mere fact that the opposite party evaded service which was ultimately affected on 3-10-1968, by affixation would not extend the period of limitation. Section 493 referred to above, is very explicit in its language. It bars a Magistrate from taking cognizance of the offence punishable under the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, if a complaint in connection therewith is not made within six months of the discovery of such an offence. I am of opinion that the Nagar Swastha Adhikari came to know of the offence alleged to have been committed by the opposite party at least on 18-9-1968 when the notice in question was sent. The offence was certainly discovered by him on that date. The present complaint having been filed on 24-4-1969 is thus clearly beyond the prescribed period of six months. In my opinion, therefore, the court below was correct in holding that the complaint was barred by time and as such it was not cognizable in view of Section 493 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. 7. For the reasons given above, I am of opinion that the order of the court below is perfectly correct and legal and must be upheld. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.