When mortgage advisor James Walker was accused of throwing a cigarette butt from his car window he was surprised - because he did not smoke.

Mr Walker, 42, told Bingley Magistrates he had stopped smoking seven months before the alleged incident on June 15, 2004, when his father had suffered a smoking-related stroke.

Mr Walker, of Temperance Field, Bradford, said when he received the fixed penalty notice he thought his friends were playing a joke.

Magistrates yesterday found Abbey employee Mr Walker not guilty of littering because Bradford Council, which brought the case, failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the alleged culprit.

"Speaking as a taxpayer that was a total waste of council money," said Mr Walker after the case. "I have been prosecuting myself for something I did not do and which was brought with no evidence to speak of."

Council officer Jackie Fawthorp told the court she was driving behind a green Vauxhall Cavalier on Manchester Road when she saw the driver drop a cigarette from the window.

"It appeared to be a conscious act," she told magistrates. "I made a note of the registration number, make and colour of the car and of the time and weather conditions."

She said she saw only the driver's arm. The next day she completed a report about the incident using information from the piece of paper. She admitted that the paper was later misplaced.

Mrs Fawthorp's manager Neil Atkinson, environmental health manager for visual services, told the court the vehicle details were checked with the Police National Computer and the DVLA which revealed Mr Walker as the registered keeper.

A fixed penalty notice for £50 was sent to Mr Walker on June 23 and Mr Atkinson said after reminders the Council served court papers on Mr Walker.

Tariq Hussein, defending, said because Mrs Fawthorp could not provide the original piece of paper and did not recall the vehicle's registration number in her evidence, the case should fail.

John Longford, chairman of the bench, told Mr Walker: "Because of the strength and accuracy of the evidence from the prosecution and the failure to produce the original recording, we do not feel that the evidence is enough to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt."