JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.5.1991 passed by the Learned J.M.F.C., Berhampur in 3(a) C.C. No. 5 of 1990 (T.R. No. 571 of 1990) acquitting the Respondent of the offence u/s 385-A of the Orissa Municipal Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.9.1989 P.W. 2, the Amin of Berhampur Municipality had visited Ward No. 13. He noticed foundation of a house laid by the accused-respondent at Nilakantheswar Temple road near Dayamohanty tank within the Municipal limits of Berhampur. On demand, the accused-respondent could not produce any permission of the Municipality for such construction. Therefore, he intimated the matter to the Town Surveyor. On receipt of such information, the Town Surveyor made spot visit and submitted his report to the Assistant Executive Officer. The Asst. Executive Officer, in his turn, served a notice on the accused-respondent calling upon him to show cause as to why action would not be taken against him and further directed to rectify the defects. It is alleged that when in spite of receipt of notice the accused-respondent did not rectify the defects, prosecution report was submitted. 3. The plea of the accused-respondent was that he was not the owner of the alleged construction and further he had not received any notice from the Municipality. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses and relied on four exhibits. The accused-respondent examined none in support of his plea. 5. Learned Magistrate, who tried the case, by her judgment dated 6.5.1991 acquitted the accused-respondent of the above offence with the finding that the Appellant could not prove the alleged unauthorized construction by the accused-respondent as also service of notice on him to rectify the defect. Against the said judgment, the Appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. Perused the impugned judgment, evidence of the witnesses and other materials on record. P.W. 2, the Amin, had stated that on 28.9.1989 he found a man named Kamana Padhi laying foundation of the alleged building. On demand, he could not produce the approved plan. In his cross-examination he stated that he does not know the accused personally. He ascertained his name from the labourers who were working at the relevant time. P.W. 2, the Amin, had stated that on 28.9.1989 he found a man named Kamana Padhi laying foundation of the alleged building. On demand, he could not produce the approved plan. In his cross-examination he stated that he does not know the accused personally. He ascertained his name from the labourers who were working at the relevant time. P.W. 1, the Town Surveyor, in his evidence has stated that during spot visit, he ascertained the name of the accused to be Kamana Padhi from the labourers working there. But, none of those labourers has been examined by the prosecution nor have P. Ws. 1 and 2 named any of the labourers from whom they ascertained the name of the accused. P.W. 1 has also stated that he had not mentioned the length and breadth of the construction in the report. Further, in his cross-examination he admitted that there is nothing on record to show that notice was served personally on the accused-respondent. He also admitted in his cross-examination that there was no document to prove the confirmation order served on the accused. Moreover, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness to establish that the alleged construction was being made by the accused-respondent. In other words, there was no material before the Trial Court that unauthorized construction was made by the accused-respondent or at the instance of the accused-respondent. 7. For the above reasons, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. According, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed