1. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced under sec. 500 of the Bengal Municipal Act for failure to remove an unauthorised latrine. The petitioner's case was that he had no such latrine. Before me Mr. Das has taken two points: The first point is that the complaint was by the Chairman of the Municipality without reference to the Commissioners. Sec. 533 of the Act provides that no prosecution for an offence under the Act or any rule or bye-law made in pursuance thereof is to be instituted without the order or consent of the Commissioners. Therefore, argues Mr. Das, the prosecution at the instance of the Chairman was without jurisdiction. The answer to the argument is to be found in sec. 51 of the Act. Mr. Talukdar for the opposite party has in this connection referred me to a Bench decision of this Court in 20 C. W. N. 824. In my view, the Chairman of the Municipality had power as representing the Commissioners to file the complaint concerned.

2. The second point taken by Mr. Das is that the prosecution was barred under the latter part of sec. 533. It appears that the discovery of an unauthorised latrine was made in August 1959, that it was on the 7th of September, 1959, tha