JUDGMENT : Banerji, J.:— The applicant, Aziz-ud-din, has been convicted of the offence punishable under section 170 of the Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a small fine. The facts found are these: the applicant came by train from Saharanpur to Muzaffarnagar without a ticket and was arrested when he was demanding one anna worth of fruit from a fruit-seller for one piece on the representation that he was a head constable, which, in fact, he was not. For this offence he has been convicted under section 170 of the Penal Code, 1860. It is contended on his behalf that this is not a case which would fall within the purview of that section. I am unable to agree with this contention. There can be no doubt that the applicant pretended to hold a particular office as a public servant, namely, the office of a head constable, knowing that he did not hold such office and that in such assumed character he attempted to do an act under colour of such office. 2. It is, in my opinion, not necessary for the application of the section that the act done under colour of office should be a legal act on the part of the accused. If he pretended to be a police officer and, as such police officer, tried to extort money or things from a fruit-seller, I think the offence under section 170 of the Penal Code, 1860 was committed. This view is supported by the ruling of this Court in Queen-Empress v. Wasir Jan : [1887] I.L.R., 10 All., 58. The conviction under section 170 was, in my opinion, a proper one. But the imposition of the extreme penalty provided by the section seem to be uncalled for. I think the ends of justice will be sufficiently met if the sentence be reduced to that of one year's rigorous imprisonment from the date of the conviction, the fine being maintained. I order accordingly, and to this extent I allow the application.