Judgment.- This is an appeal filed by the Kozhikode Municipality against an order of acquittal passed by the Honorary Special First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode. The accused was prosecuted by the Municipality for failure to comply with the order requiring her to demolish the unauthorised construction effected by her in respect of her building situated within the Municipal limits. The charge was under sections 216 and 317 of the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920). She was represented by a pleader who denied the charge. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that a confirmatory order as envisaged in section 216(3) of the Act has not been served on the accused. The order of the lower Court is challenged on the ground that there is evidence to prove that the confirmatory order was personally served on the accused. P.W. 1 is the Assistant Town Planning Officer. He gave evidence that the accused had expanded the verandah of her house and had also constructed a room on the first floor of the verandah without obtaining permission from the Municipality. He inspected the spot and sent a report giving the details of the construction with a plan attached. Exhibit P-1 is that report. It is dated 5th October, 1956. Thereupon the accused was served with a provisional order and notice under section 216(2) of the District Municipalities Act requiring her to demolish the work within seven days from the date of the receipt of the order and also requiring her to show cause within three days why the above order should not be confirmed. That order is dated 26th October, 1956 and was accepted by her husband on her behalf on 9th November, 1956. It is marked as Exhibit P-2. In reply to the above notice, on 10th November, 1956 the accused filed Exhibit P-3 petition stating that she had applied for the necessary permission along with the plan and licence fee on 8th November, 1956 and praying that no further steps may be taken. That explanation was considered by the Municipality and was rejected by them on 27th February, 1958 and the permission prayed for by the accused was also refused, as the accused had demolished the house on the northern side of the building and a new building had been constructed at that site and the site-plan was not according to the details actually found at the site. Exhibit P-4 is the copy of the order and that was also accepted by her husband on her behalf on 8th March, 1958. Thereafter the confirmatory order was passed on 9th August, 1958, requiring the accused to demolish within seven days the work done unlawfully and without permission failing which the construction would be demolished and she will be prosecuted. That order was personally served on the accused on 24th November, 1958. It is after that that the prosecution was launched. The notice is marked as Exhibit P-5. P.W. 2 is the peon who served the notice. He gave evidence that when he took the notice and showed it to the accused’s husband he directed him to take the notice to the accused herself and so the notice was shown to the accused in her husband’s presence. Her name was written by the peon and she affixed her signature to it. There is no reason why the evidence of the peon should not be accepted. The learned Magistrate seems to think that the departure from the earlier procedure of having the notice served on the accused’s husband looks suspicious especially because there is only some scribbling by way of signature. I do not think that any adverse inference can be drawn from the mere fact that the accused had only scribbled on the notice and had not put a well-defined signature. Her signature as seen from her vakalath and the summons served on her is mere scribbling. It is also seen that she had personally accepted the summons in this case. The learned Magistrate was also prejudiced by the mistaken impression that the prosecution has failed to produce the petition filed by the accused in reply to the first notice served on her. As mentioned earlier that petition is marked as Exhibit P-3. The finding of the learned Magistrate that the prosecution has not proved that the confirmatory order was served on the petitioner is unsustainable and has only to be vacated. It may also be mentioned that in view of the difference in the wording of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 216, it is doubtful whether the confirmatory order had to be served on the accused at all before launching the prosecution. It may also be mentioned that in view of the difference in the wording of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 216, it is doubtful whether the confirmatory order had to be served on the accused at all before launching the prosecution. While sub-section (2) prescribes that the Executive Authority shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-section (1) on the owner of the building requiring him to show cause within a reasonable time to be named in such notice why the order should not be confirmed, sub-section (3) only enjoins that if the owner falls to show cause to the satisfaction of the Executive Authority, the Executive Authority may confirm the order with any modification he may think fit to make, and such order shall then be binding on the owner. There is no direction that the order passed under sub-section (3) should be notified to the owner of the building. In the result the order of acquittal is set aside and the accused is convicted under sections 216 and 317 of the Madras District Municipalities Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week. Time for payment of fine one month from this date. M.C.M. ----- Appeal allowed.