Curgenven, J.

1. The petitioner was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Narasapur of an offence under Section 317 (a) of the District Municipalities Act, Madras Act V of 1920, namely, with commencing the reconstruction of a building without the permission of the Chairman, Municipal Council, Palacole, and was sentenced to pay a fine Rs. 50. In appeal the learned Joint Magistrate altered the conviction to one under Section 317 (c) of the Act, which renders punishable the carrying on or completion of a construction or reconstruction in contravention of any provision contained in the Act or of any rule or bye-law made there under, or of any direction or requisition lawfully given, or made and reduced the fine to Rs. 25.

2. It is now argued that the learned Joint Magistrate has failed to apply the definition of reconstruction which is contained in Section 3 (24) of the Act. In cases where reconstruction is partial only, that definition requires that the re-erection to constitute reconstruction should be done after more than one-half of the cubical contents of the building have been taken down or burnt down. The Joint Magistrate applies what he calls the test of common-sense