JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - The Berhampur Municipality has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 28.7.1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Berhampur in 3(a) C.C. No. 322 of 1986. Respondent is the accused in the case. 2. It appears from the L.C.R. that Respondent faced the aforesaid trial for the offence u/s 385A of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (in short "the Act") on the allegation of making a construction in Ward No. 25 in contravention of the provisions of Section 264 and 266 of the Act. It is further alleged by the prosecution that in spite of service of show-cause notice Respondent failed to show-cause. To substantiate the accusation, prosecution examined three witnesses and relied on five documents marked Exts. 1 to 5. Out of the same, Ext. 5 is the relevant document relating to service of notice to show-cause on the Respondent. 3. Respondent took a plea of complete denial but tendered no evidence. 4. The trial Court on assessment and appreciation of evidence recorded the finding that in the absence of proof of service of show-cause notice on the Respondent, accusation against the Respondent for the offence u/s 386A of the Act is not sustainable. In that respect, he referred to the evidence of P.W. 2 relating to the manner in which the show-cause notice was served on an unidentified person. 5. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that in view of Ext. 5 evidence of P.W. 2 should have been believed. This Court finds no reason to accept such argument inasmuch as P.W. 2 has admitted that he had no acquaintance with the Respondent and the person on whom he served the notice was not identified by any person. P.W. No. 2 has not identified the Respondent to be the person on whom he served the show-cause notice. Apart from that evidence of P.W. No. 3 does not clinchingly show regarding undertaking of any construction by the Respondent other than the construction for which he was found guilty as per the judgment Ext. 1. Admittedly, P.W. No. 1 had no personal knowledge about the occurrence. Under such circumstance, this Court does not find the impugned judgment and the reasons thereof either to be illegal or perverse. Thus, the appeal bears no merit to interfere with the order of acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 1. Admittedly, P.W. No. 1 had no personal knowledge about the occurrence. Under such circumstance, this Court does not find the impugned judgment and the reasons thereof either to be illegal or perverse. Thus, the appeal bears no merit to interfere with the order of acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed