JUDGMENT

Bennett, J. - This is an application in revision by a man named Ganeshi Lal, a resident of Fyzabad. He is a son of one of the proprietor of the firm Messrs. Gobreram Tulsiram. He was found guilty by the Magistrate (who refers to him as the proprietor of the firm) of offences u/s 155 of the Municipalities Act and Rule 159 of the Municipal Account Code. Under the latter provision and the Schedule to the Code he was fined Rs. 50: u/s 155 of the Act he was fined Rs. 1,000. In appeal to the Sessions Judge the convictions were upheld. As, however, it was found that only a technical offence had been committed u/s 155, the minimum penalty under that section, namely Rs. 904, was imposed. The fine of Rs. 50 under Rule 159 of the Account Code was maintained.

2. The proprietors of the firm are, I understand, the Appellant's father, Gobrey Ram and a man named K.P. Shah. In his judgment the Sessions Judge refers to K.P. Shah as the proprietor of a Calcutta firm, but Counsel before me stated that actually there is only one firm with these two proprietors and head quarters in Calcutta. The actual facts about this are, however, not material.

3. The proved and relevant facts are that a consign