Order.- This is an application for revision against the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under section 353, Indian Penal Code. 2. One Irappa, brother of the petitioner, owned several houses in Kittur village in Haveri Taluk, Dharwar District. He had not paid taxes for the houses. The Village Panchayat passed a resolution, dated 25th November, 1969, to the effect that distress warrants should be issued against all the defaulters. In pursuance of the resolution, the Chairman of the Village Panchayat issued a warrant (Exhibit P-5) against Irappa, that in case, he failed to pay the taxes his movables would be attached. Rudrappa (P.W.1), who was the Secretary of the Village Panchayat was authorised to execute the warrant. On 30th December, 1969. Rudrappa along with Elangouda (P.W.2) Patil of the Village, Hanumappa Talwar (P.W.3), Walikar of the Village, Fakeerappa Talwar (P.W.4), Sepoy of Panchayat Office, went to the house of Irappa to execute the warrant. Irappa was not in the house. Rudrappa asked the petitioner to pay the tax. The petitioner requested two weeks time to pay the tax. In the meanwhile, the cattle from inside the house came out driven by a boy obviously for grazing. Then Rudrappa asked the Talwar and the Sepoy (P.Ws.3 and 4) to detain the cattle so that he might attach them. It appears that at that time according to the prosecution, the petitioner drove the cattle away. When questioned by Rudrappa, the petitioner said to have shouted and pushed him. Rudrappa left the place and lodged a complaint for an offence under section 353, Indian Penal Code. On these facts, the petitioner was prosecuted. 3. At the trial, P.Ws. 3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution. Relying on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and, 2, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner of the offence under section 353 Indian Penal Code. 4. It is contended by Mr. Hulgur, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, firstly that the warrant in this care was illegal and secondly P.W.1 was not a person who could have executed the warrant; and he was not at the relevant point of time, in the discharge of his duties as a Public Servant. 4. It is contended by Mr. Hulgur, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, firstly that the warrant in this care was illegal and secondly P.W.1 was not a person who could have executed the warrant; and he was not at the relevant point of time, in the discharge of his duties as a Public Servant. Sub-section (3) of section 77 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959., as amended provides that the presentation of bill under sub-section (1), and the service of every writ of demand under sub-section (2), shall be effected by the Village Accountant having jurisdiction or other person authorised by the Panchayat in this behalf. At the time of he alleged offence, the amendment had come into force and the only person who could have presented the bill under sub-section (1) and who could have served the writ of demand under sub-section (2) was the village accountant. P.W.1 who was the secretary, had no legal authority to execute the warrant. The warrant authorising the Secretary (P.W.1) to recover the tax from Irappa, therefore, was obviously illegal. 5. In that case it is obvious that in the first instance section 353, Indian Penal Code has no application. Before anybody could be convicted of that section,‘the public servant must be acting in the! discharge of his duties and if he was acting under an order which was bad in the sense that it was illegal, then even though he might have been himself unaware of the illegality, that does not make any difference. 6. Apart from this, the offence in this case has not been established beyond doubt. As stated earlier, two servants of the Panchayat P.W.3 and P.W.4 who were present have not supported the case of the prosecution; P.W.1 in examination in-chief has stated that the petitioner shouted and drove the cattle. He has not stated that he shouted at him and drove the cattle when they were being detained by P.Ws. 3 and 4. In cross examination he has tried to implicate the petitioner. P.W.2 has given a different version. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner assaulted or used criminal force to P.W.1. The petitioner could not therefore be held guilty of the offence under section 353, Indian Penal Code. 7. 3 and 4. In cross examination he has tried to implicate the petitioner. P.W.2 has given a different version. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner assaulted or used criminal force to P.W.1. The petitioner could not therefore be held guilty of the offence under section 353, Indian Penal Code. 7. I set aside the conviction and sentence of fine passed upon the petitioner and direct that if fine amounts, has been paid, it should be refunded to him. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed; conviction set aside.