Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.
1. This revision petition is by accused 2 who has been found guilty under Section 270 of the District Municipalities Act and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to simple imprisonment for one week, by the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Tanjore, in O. C. No. 2 of 1956. The charge against the petitioner was that he along with accused 1, who is not before me, was running a lorry-stand In T. S. No. 2985/P of Ward 6 of Tanjore Municipality without a licence and had therefore committed an offence punishable under Section 270 of the District Municipalities Act.
2. The owner of the land is accused 1 who has been acquitted on the ground that there was no evidence that he had used his land as a stand for parking lorries. It has not been proved that he had leased out this land to accused 2, the petitioner before me, for such a purpose. Nor has it been proved by any evidence that the petitioner had any control over the use of this land, either by way of a lease or by any permission or licence from its owner.
Except the evidence of P.W. 6 who says that he saw lorries being parked on the site in question and gives expression to his opinion or inference that these lorries were being parked on the site for the purpose of loading and unloading with the permission of the petitioner, there Is no other evidence which could be accepted. The mere fact that lorries are parked on the site for the purpose of loading and unloading and the fact that the petitioner is a broker dealing in the securing of custom for lorries, which happen to come to the site in question, would not amount to running of a stand for lorries.
Parking of the lorries on the site must be directly attributable to the accused and his responsibility therefor should be esoatuished. In order to prove that the petitioner was cagy using the land in question not belonging to him as a stand for lorries, something newer must be established. He should either have control over the land or exercise authority over the land. He must be in a position to allow or disallow the parking of lorries on the land, or he must be making some benefit by allowing the lorries to be parked on the site in question. If lorry-drivers bring their lorries and park them on a vacant site near the office of the accused, unless it is proved that they do so on his permission only, it cannot be said that the accused is using the vacant site as a lorry stand.
When nothing of these things is proved, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established a case that the petitioner has been using the land as a stand for the parking of lorries, and that he was doing so without a licence'. I do not think that the conviction is therefore based on any evidence which could be said to have brought home the guilt to the accused-petitioner. The petitioner is therefore entitled to be acquitted. The conviction and the sentence are both set aside; and the fine, if paid, will be refunded.