Judgment Sarjoo Prasad, J. 1. This is an application against the order of conviction under Sec.186, Penal Code, the petitioner having been sentenced to one months rigorous imprisonment under that section. 2. The prosecution case is that there was a civil Court decree in which the petitioners father was also judgment-debtor. A writ of delivery of possession was issued in execution of that decree and a peon went to the apot to effect delivery of possession of a certain house to the decree-holder on 11th December 1948. When the drum was being beaten, the petitioner who was in occupation of the house at the time stated to the peon that he had taken the house on rent from Sonik Ram and Parmeshar Ram, the landlords, and that he could not vacate the house unless the landlords aaked him to do so. It is also stated that the petitioner made an endorsement on the back of the writ to the same effect. The peon then submitted a report saying that he had been obstructed is delivering possesssion, and that in the circumstances delivery of possession could not be effected without deputation of the Nazir of the Court. The proceeding accordingly was started against the petitioner for voluntarily obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his duties. 3. The defence of the petitioner is that when the peon asked the petitioner to vacate the house, the petitioner replied that he had taken the house on rent from two persons named above, and would call the owners of the house to corroborate the statement of the peon so liked. He, had, therefore, no intention to obstruct the peon in the discharge of his duties and his con. duct was absolutely bond fide. 4. The two Courts below have held that there was obstruction on the part of the petitioner and have, therefore, convicted him as stated above. 5. On behalf of the petitioner it has been urged that the facts alleged by the prosecution do not constitute a case of voluntary obstruction so as to amount to an offence under Sec.186 of the Code. I have examined the evidence of the peon and the report submitted by him. 5. On behalf of the petitioner it has been urged that the facts alleged by the prosecution do not constitute a case of voluntary obstruction so as to amount to an offence under Sec.186 of the Code. I have examined the evidence of the peon and the report submitted by him. The peons evidence only shows that when he went to execute the writ of delivery of possession, the petitioner stated to him that he was in occupation of the house under a tenancy from some other persons. It does not appear that the petitioner threatened the peon with any violence in case he persisted in effecting the delivery of possession, and he offered to call to the alleged landlords under whom the petitioner claimed the tenancy. The peon, however, does not appear to have waited for all this, but he went back and immediately submitted a report against the petitioner. The endorsement on the back of the writ runs as follows: "Sheo Pd. Sonik Ram, Parmeshar Ram ka makan hai. Osme ham kiraya lekar rahte hain. Ham Ramlakhan Ram rahte hain, On logan ke anese hat jayenge. Is ghari nahin hatenge." 6. The endorsement, therefore, makes it clear that the petitioner was prepared to vacate the house on the arrival of those persona viz. Sheo Pd. Sonik Ram, Parmeshar Bam, about whom he alleged were the owners of the house. This part of the defence has not been accepted by the two Courts below. Even if the allegation that Sheo Pd. Sonik Bam Parmeshar Ram were the owners of the house was found to be false, it doss not appear that the peon warned the petitioner that he would not listen to any such excuse as he was bound to deliver possession to the dtcree-holder. As there was no threat or assault or violence on the part of the petitioner, there was no reason for the peon not to execute the writ and to go back and submit a report. The mere fact that such a statement was made before the peon does not necessarily amount to obstruction. It is true that in order to constitute an obstruction physical force is not necessary. The obstruction may be in various ways but here it does not appear that the peon persisted in the performance of his duties and was obstructed as such. It is true that in order to constitute an obstruction physical force is not necessary. The obstruction may be in various ways but here it does not appear that the peon persisted in the performance of his duties and was obstructed as such. All that he did was that on heating that statement he returned back with out even waiting to verify whether the statement was true od false. I, therefore, do not find that a case of voluntary obstruction has been made out beyond any shadow of doubt. I would, accordingly give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner and allow the application, set aside the order of conviction and sentence against him and make the rule absolute.