JUDGMENT Uday Sinha, J. This application in revision is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under section 194 (2) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The petitioner has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, to suffer simple Imprisonment for one month. In addition, the petitioner has also been made liable to pay a fine of Re. 1/-per day from 10.11.1972 till the removal of the wall. 2. The petitioner owns a house in the town of Gaya bearing holding no. 136 in ward no. 2. On 26.8.1972 road Sarkar of the Gaya Municipality inspected and round that the southern and western walls of the building in question were in ruinous condition. He reported the matter to the Municipality. The Municipality there upon issued notice in terms of section 194 (ii) of the Act, and called upon the petitioner and Haridwar Singh to demolish the wall within seven days of the receipt of the notice. The petitioner did not demolish the wall. A complaint was, therefore, filed on 16.2.1973 against the petitioner and Haridwar Singh. Cognizance of the offence was taken. 3. The trial court convicted the petitioner but acquitted Haridwar Singh. He was acquitted on the ground that the notice in terms of section 194 (ii) of the Act, had not been served upon him. The petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction to the Session Judge, Gaya. The appeal was heard by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, who dismissed it without any modification in the conviction and the sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner in not demolishing the wall. The defence or the petitioner is that Hardwar Singh, one of the tenants, who was residing in the house, did not let the petitioner demolish the wall in question. My attention has been drawn to some petitions filed by the petitioner in Court offering to get the wall removed through the medium of the Municipality for which the petitioner would be prepared to meet the cost or demolition. The record dhows that at one stage the Municipality served a tentative cost of demolition of the wall to the extent of Rs. 300/-. The petitioner requested the Court that be may be directed to deposit the sum of Ra. The record dhows that at one stage the Municipality served a tentative cost of demolition of the wall to the extent of Rs. 300/-. The petitioner requested the Court that be may be directed to deposit the sum of Ra. 300/- and the wall may be demolished at his cost. This, however, did not take effect, as the Court felt that it was no part of its duty to get the wall removed. The bonafide of the petitioner, however, is of no consequence. 5. Section 194 of the Act, enjoins upon a person directed to remove ruinous building to comply with it. The notice served upon the petitioner, however, was defective, in the sense that it did not comply the provisions of section 359 (2) of the Act. Section 359 lays down that the Commissioner of the Commissioners at a meeting may require the owner or the occupiers, of any land, to execute any work or to do anything within a specified time, sub-section [2] thereof lays down that every such requisition, except the requisition under section 196 or 197, shall give notice to the persons to whom it is addressed that if they fail to comply with the requisition or to prefer an objection against such requisition as provided in the next succeeding section, the Commissioners will enter upon the land and cause the required work to be executed, or the required think to be done. No such notice was served upon the petitioner. The impact of section 359(2) of the Act, came up for consideration before a single Judge of this Court in Manager, Dhalbhum Estate V. Jagsalal Notified area Committee. Varma. J., in similar circumstance, held that the provisions or section 359 [2] of the Act, are imperative and non-compliance of these provisions make the notice illegal. 6. The position is the same in the present case also. The requisition did not lay down that if the petitioner failed to demolish the wall, the Municipality would get it demolished at the cost of the petitioner. In fact, I have not the least doubt in my mind that the petitioner would have welcomed it. Be that as it may, the notice being defective the conviction of the petitioner cannot stand. 7. In the result, the application is allowed and the conviction and the sentences passed against the petitioner are hereby set aside. In fact, I have not the least doubt in my mind that the petitioner would have welcomed it. Be that as it may, the notice being defective the conviction of the petitioner cannot stand. 7. In the result, the application is allowed and the conviction and the sentences passed against the petitioner are hereby set aside. The fine, if paid by the petitioner, must be refunded to him. 8. It will be open to the Municipality to initiate fresh proceeding after due noticed to the petitioner and to the person occupying it to demolish the wall in question if it considers the same dangerous to life. Application allowed.