JUDGMENT : B.N. Misra, J. - The Appellant Cuttack Municipality has been granted special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal of the Respondent passed by the learned Magistrate Sri S.K. Pradhan, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Cuttack in 3 C.C. No. 56 of 1975. 2. The case of the complainant may be briefly stated. The accused Respondent is a resident of Holding No. 479 under Ward No. XVIII of the Cuttack Municipality. It is alleged that the accused is carrying on the business of manufacturing Gudakhu within the premises of the above holding without a valid licence from the Cuttack Municipality. This action of the accused is stated to be in violation of the notification dated 7-1-1974 of the Cuttack Municipality (Ext. 1). Prosecution report was submitted against the accused on 26-3-1975 and cognizance was taken on that date u/s 290/383 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. The accused was thereafter summoned and put on trial. 3. The defence plea is one of complete denial. In his statement, recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has stated that he is not carrying on the business of manufacturing Gudakhu in the holding. He has further stated that he does not pull on well with his father and the municipal employees who have falsely deposed against him in Court. 4. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and one on behalf of the defence. The learned Magistrate who tried the case found the accused not guilty and acquitted him. Hence this appeal by the Municipality. 5. Ext. 1 is a notification dated 7-1-1974 issued by the Cuttack Municipality u/s 290 of the Orissa Municipal Act. In this notification it is clearly mentioned that without a valid licence no person can manufacture Gudakhu in any place within the municipal limits and that with a valid licence Gudakhu may be manufactured in the areas (1) to the immediate east of the garden attached to the outside the river protective embankment and (2) at the site in Biranasi outside the river protective embankment in the open area bearing plot Nos. 755, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 766 and 767 of Biranasi. The present case is concerned with Holding No. 479 in Ward No. XVIII. As per the notification Ext. 1, Gudakhu cannot be manufactured in Ward No. XVIII of the Cuttack Municipality. 6. P.Ws. 755, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 766 and 767 of Biranasi. The present case is concerned with Holding No. 479 in Ward No. XVIII. As per the notification Ext. 1, Gudakhu cannot be manufactured in Ward No. XVIII of the Cuttack Municipality. 6. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 are the municipal employees and P.W. 3 is the father of the accused. According to P.W. 1, the accused manufactures Gudakhu in Holding No. 479 of Ward No. XVIII without a licence and the said factory is named as "Reeta Gudakhu Factory". According to him, accused had promised to obtain a licence but he had failed to do so. In cross examination P.W. 1 has stated that the holding belongs to P.W. 3 the father of the accused. P.W. 1 cannot say who is the Karta of the family. P.W. 1 has further stated that the factory is contiguous to the house of the accused. It is, therefore, not clear from the evidence of P.W. 1 where the factory is situated. P.W. 2 has stated that he had gone with P.W. 4 to the Gudakhu factory of the accused. P.W. 2 has also stated that the accused failed to produce any licence. In cross-examinations P.W. 2 has stated that he had not verified any papers to ascertain who was the owner of the building. He did not even enquire from the employees of the factory as to who was the owner of the factory:. He has proved the complaint filed by the accused's father (Ext. 3/4). P.W. 4 has stated that he has seen the accused manufacturing Gudakhu in the holding. He does not know to whom the holding belongs. P.W. 3 is the father of the accused. He has complained to the Municipality on account of the bad smell created by the manufacture of Gudakhu by the accused. In cross-examination P.W. 3 has admitted that he does not pull on well with the accused. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not show the location of the holding in which the accused is alleged to be manufacture Gudakhu. The witnesses are also not sure as to the ownership of the Holding No. 479 of Ward No. XVIII. The evidence of these prosecution witnesses is very sketchy and does not inspire any confidence. The learned Magistrate was right in not accepting the evidence of these witnesses. 7. The witnesses are also not sure as to the ownership of the Holding No. 479 of Ward No. XVIII. The evidence of these prosecution witnesses is very sketchy and does not inspire any confidence. The learned Magistrate was right in not accepting the evidence of these witnesses. 7. Further D.W. 1, who has been examined on behalf of the accused, has stated that to his knowledge accused does not manufacture Gudakhu in the house in which lives. He has also denied that the name-plate "Reeta Gudakhu Factory" is displayed by the accused either in his house or near his house. This defence witness has not at all been cross-examined by the complainant. Thus the evidence of D.W. 1 must be accepted. 8. On consideration I agree with the learned Magistrate that the complainant has failed to prove the case against the accused. 9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the order of acquittal is confirmed. Final Result : Dismissed