Short Note : 1. This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the order of acquittal dated 20-8-73 passed by the Magistrate First class, Alote in Criminal Case No. 12/72. 2. The case of the complainant, in brief, was that the respondent imported a tractor bearing registration No. 8408 with a trolley attached to it within the limits of the Municipal Council, Alote without payment of the Octroi duty. The Octroi duty amounted to Rs. 600/-. A notice was issued to the respondent by the Municipal Council. The respondent promised to pay the amount within one month but did not fulfil his promise. Another notice was issued to him and as the respondent failed to pay the amount, the respondent was prosecuted-under section 155 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. The respondent pleaded not guilty. After trial the learned Magistrate found that the respondent introduced the tractor with the trolley attached to it within the Municipalities its and neither raid nor tendered the Ocroi duty payable thereon but acquitted the respondent on the ground that the Municipal Council Alote had no authority to impose Octroi duty in respect of a motor vehicle under section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947. The complainant Municipal Council has challenged this order of acquittal in this appeal. Held : The learned Magistrate was clearly in error in holding that the Municipal council had no power to impose Octroi duty on a motor vehicle under section 6 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947. It appears that the learned Magistrate lost sight of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the said Act which lays down that nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall affect the imposition, enhancement or recovery of an Octroi tax levied or to be leived hereafter by any local authority or terminal tax levied and in force on the 1st January 1947 within the local area under the jurisdiction of any Local authority. Therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is clearly untenable. 3. However, Shri J.D. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent contended that it has not been proved that tractor in question belonged to the respondent and that he imported the same within Municipal limits. Therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is clearly untenable. 3. However, Shri J.D. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent contended that it has not been proved that tractor in question belonged to the respondent and that he imported the same within Municipal limits. According to him the respondent was using the tractor only on hire and therefore he was not liable to pay the Octroi duty and no offence was committed by him. There is no substance in this submission of the learned counsel. Khayallsingh (P.W.1) OctroI Inspector has stated on oath that the respondent introduced the tractor with the trolley attached to it within the Municipal limits of Alote. When notice was issued to the respondent for payment of the Octroi duty he submitted an application on 5-10-72 (Ex. P.1) to the Secretary of the Municipal Council. In this application he prayed for one month's time to ray the Octroi duty on the said tractor. The respondent also submitted an application (Ex. D. 1) to the Chief Municipal Officer in which he stated that he has purchased the tractor from Kishanlal Patidar of Jiran on trial for four months; that the said tractor is with him from 30-11-70 and that if after the expiry of two months the registration of the tractor is transferred in his favour he would pay the Octroi duty to the Municipal Council. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel that the tractor belonged to some one else and the respondent was plying it only on hire and therefore, he was not liable to pay Octroi duty and no offence has been committed by him. On the facts stated above and consideration of the evidence adduced in the case I am of the opinion that the charge under section 155 of the M.P. Municipalities Act 1961 has been proved against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent is, therefore, convicted under section 155 of the Act and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1200/- (Rs. one thousand two hundred). Appeal allowed.