A. S. QURESHI J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the Surpanch of village Mota Khutwada Taluka Mahuva District Bhavnagar against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First-Class Mahuva against the original accused Nos. 1 2 and 3 who are opponents Nos. 1 2 and 3 in this appeal. ( 2 ) THE prosecution was launched against the three accused for the offences allegedly committed in contravening the provisions of Section 93 (1) and Section 94 (1) clause (c) of the Gujarat Panchyats Act 1961 (Gujarat Act 6 of 1962) hereinafter referred to as the Act. The complainant who is the Sarpanch of Village Khutwada has alleged in his complaint that the original three accused had constructed shops in the village without the prior permission of the Village Panchayat and thereby contravened the provisions of Section 93 (1) of the Act. It was also alleged that over the said shops accused had constructed projections overhanging the public street and thereby encroached on the Panchayat land thus contravening the provisions of section 94 (1) clause (c) of the Act. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the prosecution the complainant Sarpanch and the Secretary of the Panchayat have been examined as witnesses. Ramniklal Kanakia P. W. 1 (Exh. 12) the complainant who is also the Sarpanch of the Panchayat has admitted in his deposition that the Panchayat has not framed any bye-laws and that there are no building regulations. He has also admitted that many houses have been built in the village and that no one has been prosecuted for having built a house without the prior permission of the panchayat. Moolshankar Mohanlal Joshi Secretary (Mantri) of the Panchayat is examined as P. W. 2 (Exh. 14) as the witness. He has admitted that whenever an application for construction is made to the Panchayat it has been granted; no application has ever been rejected. Moreover he has stated that the street on which the said shops have been constructed is not measured and therefore there is only a suspicion that the balcony of the projection over the shops may be encroaching on the Panchayat land. There is nothing on the record to show that the said projection is on the public street or that there is any encroachment by the accused. ( 4 ) THE Panchayat had given notice to accused Nos. There is nothing on the record to show that the said projection is on the public street or that there is any encroachment by the accused. ( 4 ) THE Panchayat had given notice to accused Nos. 1 and 2 on August 16 1978 for allegedly contravening the provisions of Section 93 of the Act only. There is no reference to any contravention of the provisions of Section 94 (1) clause (c ). The complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that on August 11 1978 he had come to know from the office record of the Sub-Registrar that accused No. 3 had nothing to do with the said shops. ( 5 ) MR. J. D. Ajmera the learned Advocate for the appellant has urged that although the Panchayat has not framed any bye-laws the offence under Section 93 (1) of the Act is committed by virtue of the construction having been carried out without the permission of the Panchayat. The fact that byelaws are not framed does not give any exemption to the accused persons to construct without the permission which is a statutory requirement. Mr. K. C. Vakharia the learned advocate has urged on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (Ori. accused Nos. 1 to 3) that in view of the fact that no bye-laws are framed no building regulations have been made and that no one in the village has been prosecuted so far for constructing a house without the prior permission of the Panchayat goes to show that the present prosecution of the accused is for ulterior purpose and that if at all there is any contavention of the statutory provision it is only a technical offence and the ends of justice would be met if a warning is issued to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Ori. accused Nos. 1 and 2) While it is true that in the circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of the allegation made the offence is only a technical one but as it is the contravention of the statutory provision it was not proper for the J. M. F. C. Mahuva to acquit the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 wholly. Hence the order of the learned Magistrate regarding acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is hereby set aside and a fine of Rs. 1 and 3 wholly. Hence the order of the learned Magistrate regarding acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is hereby set aside and a fine of Rs. 5/- is imposed on each of them under Section 93 (4) of the Act. ( 6 ) AS regard respondent Nos. 3 the acquittal order of the learned Magistrate will have to be upheld as even the complainant has admitted that on August 11 1979 he had come to know from the office record of the Sub-Registrar that respondent No. 3 had nothing to do with the said shops and that only accused Nos. 1 and 2 ought to have been proceeded against for the said contravention. ( 7 ) AS regard the alleged offence committed under Section 94 (1) clause (c) of the Act there is absolutely no basis for holding that the projection complained of was any encroachment on the Panchayat land. There is total absence of evidence to prove that there was any such encroachment. ( 8 ) THE learned Magistrate has directed that a notice be issued against the complainant for filing a false complaint against respondent No. 3 (original accused No. 3 ). Apparently this order is passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code for paving compensation to the respondent No. 3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case it seems that it was not quite unreasonable on the part of the learned Magistrate to issued such notice because the complainant has himself admitted that on August 11 1978 he had come to know that the accused No. 3 had nothing to do with the property in question and yet he was joined as accused No. 3 in the complaint which was filed on August 21 1978 In the circumstances of the case the appeal is partially allowed and the order of acquittal passed by the learned J. M. F. C. Mahuva is modified to the extent set out above. The acquittal order against the respondent No. 3 is upheld and the order of acquittal against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is set aside and a fine of Rs. 5/- is imposed against each of them in default to suffer S. I. for one day. Fine is to be paid within four weeks on the receipt of writ by the Trial Court. 1 and 2 is set aside and a fine of Rs. 5/- is imposed against each of them in default to suffer S. I. for one day. Fine is to be paid within four weeks on the receipt of writ by the Trial Court. ( 9 ) ANY observations made above would not in any way come in the way of the proceedings that may follow on the aforesaid notice. .