ORDER S.B. SEN, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch for quashing the conviction of the applicants under S. 353, I.P.C. 2. The Magistrate before whom the applicants were prosecuted, found that the members of the Construction Committee of the Municipal Board, Neemuch were obstructed in the discharge of their duty and were not allowed to inspect the site of one Baluram Lakhera. These members had been to the spot on 17-5-1957 at 9.30 A. M., in order to find out whether construction was proper. 3. The finding of the Magistrate that these applicants Were responsible for obstructing the members in the discharge of their duty, is based on the evidence of P.W. 1 Laxmanswarup Bhargav, President of the Construction Committee, P.W. 2 Shankarlal, P.W. 5 Gulzarilal Overseer, P.W. 3 Tarachand etc. 4. The applicants filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge. He has come to the conclusion that no offence was committed as there was no intention to deter the public Servants from the discharge of their duty. The Additional Sessions Judge also came to the conclusion that there was no common intention in furtherance of which the applicants had assembled there. The Addl. Sessions Judge found also that as there was no appeal, the appeal could be treated as a revision and as he could not acquit the accused under his revisional powers, he has made this reference. 5. In my view this reference cannot be accepted. A perusal of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge will show that he has discussed the case as if it was an appeal. The evidence of P.W. 1 Laxmanswarup Bhargav, the President of the Construction Committee shows that they were obstructed while they were on their duty to inspect the spot and had to come back. Further, P.W.3 Tarachand, who wanted to explain the accused that they (accused) should not obstruct them (members of the Construction Committee), was assaulted. The Additional Sessions Judge has not relied on these two witnesses because he found that the other witnesses did not support them in details. The first information report corroborates the version of P.W. 1. Laxmanswarup Bhargav and P. W. 3 Tarachand. When, therefore, there is evidence on record on the basis of which the Magistrate convicted the applicants, the Addl. The Additional Sessions Judge has not relied on these two witnesses because he found that the other witnesses did not support them in details. The first information report corroborates the version of P.W. 1. Laxmanswarup Bhargav and P. W. 3 Tarachand. When, therefore, there is evidence on record on the basis of which the Magistrate convicted the applicants, the Addl. Sessions Judge, in exercising revisional powers, should not have gone beyond the finding of the Magistrate unless he found it to be perverse. The Additional Sessions Judge no where opines that the finding arrived at by the Magistrate was a perverse one. The decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kartar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1956 SC 451) is beside the point. That was a case for a defamation on the basis of certain abusive words uttered by the public and their Lordships of the Supreme Court said:- "Whoever fills a public position must accept an attack as necessary, though unpleasant, appendage to his office public men in such positions may as well think it worth their while to ignore any vulgar criticisms and abuses hurled against them rather than give an importance to the same by prosecuting the persons responsible for the same." In the instant case both, the Magistrate as well as the Addl. Sessions Judge have found that the members of the Committee had gone to the spot in the discharge of their duty; they have also found that they came back without doing the work for which they had gone there; it is also admitted that there were abusive words even according to the Additional Sessions Judge. The only difference between the Magistrate and the Addl. Sessions Judge is that whereas the Magistrate held that there were assaults, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge thinks that there was none. In my view, as I have already stated, when the Magistrate's finding is based on the evidence on record, the Addl. Sessions Judge should have in a revision, accepted the dame though there was possibility of a different conclusion being reached. It is the perversity of a finding or complete lack of evidence on which a finding is based, or any illegality or material irregularity in coming to the conclusion that gives a revisional Court jurisdiction to alter a finding of fact. It is the perversity of a finding or complete lack of evidence on which a finding is based, or any illegality or material irregularity in coming to the conclusion that gives a revisional Court jurisdiction to alter a finding of fact. A perusal of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge under reference would show that no such contingency had arisen. On the other hand, it is clear that after discussing the case before him as an appeal, when he found that he had no jurisdiction to acquit, he treated the matter as revision and had made this reference. 6. The reference, therefore, cannot be accepted. Appeal dismissed