JUDGMENT Stevens and Harington, JJ. - The Applicant in this case is registered as a had character in the Police Register. 2. The case for the prosecution is that the Sub-Inspector paid a domiciliary visit to the Petitioner in order to ascertain that he was at home and wished to take an impression of his thumb. The Petitioner objected. The Sub-Inspector as he says "extended his hand" to take the impression. The Petitioner went into his house and brought out a lathi and said that he would not allow the impression to be taken and that, if any one asked for it, he would break his head. On these facts the Petitioner has been convicted u/s 353 of the Indian Penal Code of assaulting a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant and has been sentenced to be rigorously imprisoned for six weeks. The Sessions Judge upheld the conviction on appeal. Though he expressed some doubt as to whether the Police were justified in forcing a supposed bad character to give a thumb impression, he held that the act of the Petitioner in getting the lathi and threatening the Sub-Inspector was not justifiable. 3. The Government pleader has appeared in support of the conviction and has referred us to a rule in the Police Code, to the effect that when any surveille is at home, proof of his presence can be secured by taking a thumb impression on the report. This, we take it, does not impose any obligation upon the surveille to give the thumb impression and we do not see how he can be forced to do so, if he objects. 4. We have further been referred to the first clause of Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides that "there is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law." 5. The difficulty that we feel as to the application of this section is that we are not satisfied that the act of the Petitioner amounted to an assault as that term is defined in Section 351 of the Indian Penal Code. The difficulty that we feel as to the application of this section is that we are not satisfied that the act of the Petitioner amounted to an assault as that term is defined in Section 351 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not said that the Petitioner made any gesture or any preparation which would cause the Sub-Inspector to apprehend that the Petitioner was about to use criminal force to him then and there. All that could be said is that his preparation taken with his words would cause the Sub-Inspector to apprehend that criminal force would be used to him, if he, the Sub-Inspector, persisted in a particular course of conduct. No doubt if the act done by the Petitioner had in itself amounted to an offence, there would have been no question that Section 99 would have applied. 6. In this view of the case we must make the rule absolute, set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the Petitioner be released from bail.