JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.4. 1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Berhampur, in Case No. 3(a) C.C. 154 of 1985, acquitting the accused-respondent, who was charged u/s 385A of the Orissa Municipal Act. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 22.2.1985 it was found that the accused-respondent was constructing a new pucca building in Madanmohan Nagar in Ward No. 11 of the Berhampur Municipality without obtaining required permission. The Addl. Executive Officer of the Berhampur Municipality without obtaining served a show cause notice u/s 273(a) of the Act on the accused but he remained silent for which the provisional order was confirmed and prosecution report was filed against the accused in the Court. 3. The prosecution is order to prove its case examined two witnesses, i.e. the Amin and the Town Surveyor of the Municipality, but no one was examined on behalf of the accused. 4. The trial Court on an analysis of both the oral and documentary evidence on record came to find that there was no proper service of the notices, Exts. 1 to 4, and there was no disclosure of the place of unauthorised construction of the building in the Amin's report. Ext. 1. The trial Court ultimately disbelieved the prosecution story and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, this was not a fit case for convicting the accused for the offence u/s 385A of the O.M. Act and accordingly acquitted the accused-respondent u/s 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Against the aforesaid order of acquittal, the Municipality has filed this appeal on the ground that the trial Court should not have disbelieved the testimony of P. Ws. 1 and 2 as the same was duly corroborated by documentary evidence. According to the Appellant, the impugned order of the trial Court does not go along with the evidence on record. 6. On going through the entire L.C.R. I find that Ext. 1 is the report made by the Amin of the Municipality (P.W. 1) regarding the unauthorised construction and Ext. 1/2 is the rough site plan prepared by the said Amin on the reverse of his report (Ext. 1). 6. On going through the entire L.C.R. I find that Ext. 1 is the report made by the Amin of the Municipality (P.W. 1) regarding the unauthorised construction and Ext. 1/2 is the rough site plan prepared by the said Amin on the reverse of his report (Ext. 1). The Amin in his report has not indicated either the plot No. or the area on which the alleged unauthorised construction was made by the accused. Similarly, in the rough site plan (Ext. 1/2), except mention of the north-south direction and some roads, neither any plot No. nor the area on which the alleged unauthorised construction was made by the accused has been shown. There is no corroborative material to accept the version of the prosecution case. There is also nothing to show that the show cause notice issued u/s 273(a) of the O.M. Act (Ext. 2) was duly served on the accused. P.W. 2, the Town Surveyor of the Municipality, has also admitted in his evidence that he had not obtained any endorsement of the accused on the notices Exts. 1 to 4. Apart from the aforesaid documentary evidence, on a perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1. I find that there is no mention of the area or the Plot No. on which the alleged unauthorised construction had taken place. P.W. 2 in his evidence has also not indicated regarding the particulars of the area and the Plot No. and during cross-examination he has also admitted that he had not obtained receipt from the accused while serving the notices Exts. 1 to 4. 7. From the above discussion, the irresistible conclusion would be that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt silence, the order of acquittal passed by the learned J.M.S.C. is not vitiated with any irregularity or illegality so as to require this Court to interfere with the same. The Criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed