JUDGMENT G.D. Dube, J. - This appeal has been preferred by Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad against the judgment and order dated 17.3.78 passed by Third Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ghaziaoad, acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 9 of U.P. (Regulation of Buildings Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The Building Inspector, Ghaziabad had made a report that the respondent had demolished his old shop and was reconstructing it. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged in the court of the concerned Magistrate at Ghaziabad. On this complaint, the respondent was charged for Section 9 of the Act. The prosecution had examined V.K. Jain, prescribed authority, Ghaziabad Development Authority Ghaziabad only. The accused had pleader not guilty to the charge. He stated that he only made repairs. Some of his projections had been demolished during raid of the Municipal authorities. Consequently, this necessitated repairs The respondent had examined himself as a defence witness. The Magistrate had held that the construction was double storeyed. It could not be reconstructed unless the two stories had been demolished On this basis, the prosecution case was disbelieved and the impugned order directing acquittal of the respondent was passed. 3. It has been urged by learned counsel for the respondent that the learned Magistrate has misconstrued the words "constructed" and "reconstructed" as used in the Act. It was also urged that even reconstruction cannot he done unless a proper sanction had been obtained from the concerned authority regulating the building operations. 4. The evidence produced before the Lower Court was not of a satisfaction character. Only vague allegations have been made that the respondent was making re-erection of the office building. There was no site plan of the building. It was not stated as to what was the extent of construction. The nature of construction or reconstruction was also not stated The respondent had examined himself as a defence witness and, had subjected himself to a searching cross-examination by the prosecution. He had categorically stated that old building was a double storeyed building. It was still standing at his place. Nothing was elicited in cross examination to show that even the second story had been reconstructed. The corn plaint lodged against the respondent does not state whether reconstruction was done on the ground floor the first floor. 5. He had categorically stated that old building was a double storeyed building. It was still standing at his place. Nothing was elicited in cross examination to show that even the second story had been reconstructed. The corn plaint lodged against the respondent does not state whether reconstruction was done on the ground floor the first floor. 5. The learned Magistrate has corn to the conclusion that as the second store was still intact, the alleged reconstruction by the respondent was not possible and therefore, cannot amount to re-erection. 6. In Section 9 of the Act, the words "erects, re-erects or makes any material change in" were substituted by U.P. Act. No. II of 1964. The word "re-erection" has been defined in Section 2 of the Act as under: (1) "to re-erect" in relation to a building means the construction for a second or subsequent time of a building or part of a building after demolishing it on the same plan as has been previously sanctioned". 7. According to the above definition, the re-erection should mean the construction of a building for a second time on the same plan as has been previously sanctioned. The prosecution has not stated a word whether the constructions were being made on the same site as the site of the old construction and whether any plan had been sanctioned for the old construction. The evidence produced by the prosecution in this matter was not at all of a satisfactory character on which the respondent could be convicted. I do not find any error at all in the judgment of the Lower Court. 8. No other point has been pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment and order of the Court below are upheld.