Judgment This is an appeal by the State against an order of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Hindupur, acquitting the respondent of an offence under section 313 read with section 249 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, for running without a licence a 20 H.P. Oil Engine, a 20 H.P. Electric Motor and a 6 H.P. Steam Engine in his factory at Hindupur during the period 1st April, 1956 and 26th April, 1956. The facts which are not in dispute, are as follows: The respondent had obtained a licence for running the machinery for the year ending with 31st March, 1956. On 28th March, 1956, he sent an application to the Executive Authority for renewal of his licence together with the required fee as also an additional fee for belated application; but he did not receive any communication from the Executive Authority. The respondent, however, continued to work the machinery. He was prosecuted for running the machinery from 1st April, 1956 to 26th April, 1956 without a licence. On these facts the learned Magistrate took the view that since the Municipal Authority had not rejected the application submitted by the respondent or sent any communication to the respondent not to run the machinery the respondent had run the factory in anticipation of renewal of his licence, and, therefore, he could not be penalized. In that view the respondent was acquitted. I am of opinion that the learned Magistrate was in error as he has overlooked the relevant provisions of the District Municipalities Act. Sub-section (5) of section 249 which deals with the renewal of licences granted by the Executive Authority, provides: “Applications for renewal of such licences shall be made not less than thirty and not more than ninety days before the end of every year............” In the instant case the application for renewal was admittedly made less than thirty days before the end of the year for which the licence had been granted; it was made just four days before the date of expiry. It was, therefore, not a valid application. It was, therefore, not a valid application. Learned advocate for the respondent however, seeks protection under subsection (11) of section 321, which is in the following terms: “The acceptance by the Municipal Council of the pre-payment of the fee for a licence or permission or for registration shall not entitle the person making such prepayment to the licence or permission or to the registration as the case may be but only to refund of the fee in case of refusal of licence or permission or registration; but an applicant for the renewal of a licence or permission or registration shall until communication of orders on his application, be entitled to act as if the licence or permission or registration had been renewed;............” The contention of the learned advocate is that, since the respondent had not received any communication from the Municipal Authority on his application for the renewal of his licence, the respondent was entitled to act as if the licence had been renewed. I am unable to accept this contention as in my view, before a person can claim the privilege under sub-section (11) of section 321, his application or renewal should have been a valid one as contemplated by sub-section (5) of section 249, that is to say, the application should have been made not less than thirty days before the end of the year for which the licence had been granted. In this case admittedly it was not so made, and consequently the respondent was not entitled to claim the benefit of the provisions of sub-section (11) of section 321 by reason of his not having received any orders on his application for renewal. In the result, I allow the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal and convict the respondent under section 313 of the Madras District Municipalities Act; but, having regard to the fact that the conduct of the Municipal Authority in not sending any communication the respondent is certainly not praiseworthy, I sentence the respondent to pay a fine of Rs.25; in default, he will suffer one week’s simple imprisonment. A.B.K. ----- Appeal allowed.