JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J. The applicants, Dip Singh, Moti Badam, Paim Singh, Kundana and Jhanda, were convicted by a Magistrate of the 2nd Class, obstructing a sale of property offered for sale by the lawful authority of a public servant, and were sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment each, under the provisions of section 184, of the Penal Code, 1860. At the same trial the applicant, Tara Singh, was convicted of abetting an offence under section 184, and was also sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment under section 184, read with section 169 of the Penal Code, 1860. On appeal the learned District Magistrate confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on Tara Singh, He also confirmed the convictions of the other accused but set aside the sentences of imprisonment passed on them, and in lieu thereof ordered each accused to pay a fine of Rs. 25. This Court is moved to set aside the convictions on the ground that the sale which is said to have been obstructed was not a sale by the lawful authority of a public servant. The learned District Magistrate was of opinion that “the question, whether the particular sale which the accused are said to have obstructed was a sale held by the lawful authority was merely a matter of academicals interest,” This is a view which I cannot accept. 2. To justify a conviction under section 184 of the Penal Code, 1860 the lawful authority of a public servant offering a property for sale must be proved by the prosecution. The accused are said to have obstructed a sale of property by an Ameen on the 7th of May, last. I think it is clear from the proceedings that the Ameen had no authority whatever to hold any sale on that day. The sale which it was attempted to hold was one under the provisions of Chapter IX of the North-Western Provinces Tenancy Act of 1901. It appears that the date of sale originally fixed was the 22nd of April. On that date the Ameen postponed the sale until the 5th of May and again until the 7th of May. The reason given for the postponement was, that there were no bidders. Now the law under which the sale was being held makes no provision for the postponement of a sale on any such ground. On that date the Ameen postponed the sale until the 5th of May and again until the 7th of May. The reason given for the postponement was, that there were no bidders. Now the law under which the sale was being held makes no provision for the postponement of a sale on any such ground. The conditions regarding postponement are to be found in section 134 of the Act. This is the only section which provides for a postponement. The condition laid down in that section did not exist in the present case, inasmuch as there was no application by the defaulter to have the sale adjourned. Moreover, that section provides for an adjournment until next day or until the next market day. The Ameen had no authority to fix any date which seemed good to him. The law does not authorise the adjournment of a sale owing to the absence of bidders. As is contended by the learned counselor the appellant, it is the duty of the distrainer to see that bidders are present. If no bidders are present, it seems to me that the distraint falls through, A constituent part of the offence as defined in section 184 of the Penal Code, 1860 is wanting in this case. I therefore quash the convictions of the applicants. The fines, if paid, must, be refunded. It Tara Singh has been released on bail under the order of this Court, dated the 20th of December last, he need not surrender and his bail bond is discharged.