JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner No. 2 claims to be the proprietor of a brick-field known as bengal Bricks situated at No. 2, Durganagar within the limits of chakdaha Municipality, District-Nadia. The petitioner No. 1 claims to be the Manager of the said brick field. The Chairman, Chakdaha Municipality by his letter dated 8th January; 1983 has informed the owner of the said Bengal Bricks field that without obtaining any license from the municipality under sections 182 and 370 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 the said owner had been illegally manufacturing bricks. The Chairman had purported to impose upon the 6wner of the said brick-field a fine amounting to five times the licence fee for having contravened sections 182 read with section 500 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. The chairman of the Municipality also imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/- upon the where of the said brick-field for having contravened the provisions of section 370 of the said Act and further a daily fine of Rs. 200/- upon him from the date of expiry of the licence previously issued. 2. THE petitioners have challenged the authority of the. Chairman of the Municipality to punish the owner of the brick-field with said fine's under section 506 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 for allegedly contravening the provisions of sections 182 and 370 of the said Act. The Chairman and the Commissioners have appeared and have made their submissions. Therefore I proceed to finally dispose of this writ application. Sub-SECTION (1) of section 500, interalia, provides:-Whoever commits any offence by (a) contravening any provision of any of the section, sub-sections, clauses of sections or provisions of this Act' mentioned in the first column of the following table, or (b) failing to comply with any direction lawfully given to him or any requisition lawfully made upon him under any of the said sections sub-sections clauses or provisos, shall be punished with fine which may extend to the amount mentioned in that behalf in the third column of the said table. 3. THE expression "offence" according to section 2 (m) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 means "any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the Cattle trespass Act 1871". 3. THE expression "offence" according to section 2 (m) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 means "any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the Cattle trespass Act 1871". The heading of chapter-XIV of the Bengal Municipal Act is "penalties". The expressions "whoever commits any offence" and "convicted of any offence" used in sub-sections (1)and (2) of section 500 of the Bengal municipal Act, 1932 clearly show that contravention "of any of the provisions mentioned in the first column of the table given under section 500 and failure to, comply with the directions etc. referred to in clause! (b) of section 500 (1) have been made punishable with fines mentioned in the third column of the table given under section 500 of the Bengal municipal Act, 1932. 4. THE Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, however, does not contain any provision regulating the manner or place of investigating, enquiring into trying or otherwise dealing with the offences under the Bengal Municipal Act. According to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the criminal Procedure Code, 1973, all offences under any other law shall be investigated, enquired into, tried" and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the code subject to any special provisions in this behalf contained in the special law. Therefore, trial of offences under section 500 of the Bengal Municipal act must be dealt with according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure code. The Chairman of the Chakdaha municipality had no jurisdiction to impose fines upon the petitioner for having allegedly contravened the provisions of sections 182 and 370 of the Bengal municipal Act, 1932. For the same reason daily fine imposed by the Chairman upon the owner of the brick field under section 500 of the Act must be held to be without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The imposition of daily fine is bad in law for another reason. The order imposing a fine and a daily fine cannot be passed together. If after the imposition of a fine the offenders persist in Committing the offence there must be: a fresh proceeding, a fresh finding and a fresh conviction (vide Bholanath Roy v. Rajgunj Municipality A. I. R 1954 Cal. 351). The order imposing a fine and a daily fine cannot be passed together. If after the imposition of a fine the offenders persist in Committing the offence there must be: a fresh proceeding, a fresh finding and a fresh conviction (vide Bholanath Roy v. Rajgunj Municipality A. I. R 1954 Cal. 351). Accordingly, I propose to quash" the fines imposed by the Chairman, Chakdaha Municipality upon the owner of the said brick-field in question. I do not however, decide whether or not the owner of the brick field had contravened the provisions of sections 182 and 370 of the Bengal Municipal Act. Therefore, the said question may be decided in any investigation, enquiry or trial according to the provisions contained in the criminal Procedure Code, 1973 I also make it clear that I have not decided questions relating to the granting and refusing and/or withholding licences under sections 182 and 370 of the bengal Municipal Act in respect of the aforesaid brick field. The said questions are left open. 5. I, therefore, allow this application, set aside and quash the order of the Chairman, Chakdaha Municipality, imposing fines upon the petitioner under section 500 read with sections 182 and 370 of the Bengal Municipal Act 1932. This order would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties to act and proceed according to law. There will be no order as to costs application allowed without costs.