JUDGMENT 1. - A challan was filed on behalf of the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur against the petitioner Mst. Bholi Bai in the court of the Municipal Magistrate, Udaipur with the allegation that the petitioner had raised some construction in her shop without the permission of the Trust and did not stop construction despite notice under section 90 of the Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (which will hereinafter be referred to as `the Act'). The case of the petitioner was that the said construction was raised by her with due permission. At the trial, the learned Magistrate found that the stair-case in dispute was raised with permission and he did not accept the case of the Trust that the permission had, later, been withdrawn. The learned Magistrate further held that the door was to be kept at a place marked `X' in the site plan exhibit D/I, but instead of keeping the door there, the door was kept at another place marked `Y', in the plan. This, he held, was in contravention of the sanction and, therefore, the appellant was liable to punishment under section 91 of the Act. The petitioner was, therefore, sentenced to a fine of Rs. 101/-by his order dated 6-11-1970. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Udaipur who dismissed the appeal by his order dated 11-11-1971. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Municipal Magistrate and upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, the petitioner has come to this Court in revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the notice issued to the petitioner under section 90 of the Act was issued to stop construction of the stair-case which was without permission and the case in the complaint filed by the non-petitioner against the petitioner was also to this effect. That case was met out by the petitioner that the alleged construction was with due permission and it was so held by the trial court, but instead of throwing out the case of the prosecution, the learned Magistrate made out a different case, which was no case of the prosecution at any stage, that the door which was to be kept at a place marked `X' in the plan exhibit - D/I, was kept at another place marked `Y' and. therefore, it was in Contravention of the sanction. It was thus a new case for the prosecution, which was made out by the learned Magistrate and the accused-petitioner was prejudiced at the trial. 5. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Trust is that the door was also part of the construction and, therefore, it was included as such. It should be taken to have been covered by the complaint and the notice. 6. The learned Sessions Judge has himself observed that it was, of-course, true that in the notice under section 90 of the Act or in the complaint lodged before the court, no specific mention has been made of this door but in his opinion, on account of this, the appellant has not been prejudiced. To me this reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge that the appellant has not been prejudiced. On this account is not sustainable. The petitioner was to meet a case of construction without any permission and she met that case by showing that she had obtained permission for the same. If there was some alteration in placing the door at a place marked 'X' instead of another place marked 'X', it cannot be said that she was asked to meet that case and, therefore, when in the notice under section 90 of the Act or in the complaint lodged before the court, no specific mention was made of this door, in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not prejudiced. Rather she was much prejudiced to meet her case, at the trial. 7. In view of these circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner cannot be maintained. The result is that the revision petition is accepted. The conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate and maintained by learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur are set aside. The fine, if paid shall be refunded to the petitioner. *******