( 1 ) THIS is an application for revision against the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 353, IPC. ( 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 dt. 25-11-1969 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 (Ex. P -. 5) against Irappa, that m case, he failed to pay the taxes his moveables would be attached. Rudrappa (PW. 1), who was the Secretary of the Village Panchayat was authorised to execute the warrant. On 30-12-1969 Rudrappa along with Elangouda (PW. 2) Patil of the village, Hanumappa Talwar (PW. 3), Walikar of the Village, fakeerappa Talwar (PW. 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 (PWs. 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 is said have shouted and pushed him. Rudrappa left the place and lodged a complaint for an offence under S. 353 IPC. On these facts, the petitioner was prosecuted. ( 3 ) AT the trial, PWs. 3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution. Relying on the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner. of the offence under S. 353 IPC. ( 4 ) IT is contended by Mr. Hulgur, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, firstly that the warrant in this case was illegal and secondly PW. 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-sec. ( 4 ) IT is contended by Mr. Hulgur, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, firstly that the warrant in this case was illegal and secondly PW. 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-sec. (3) of Sec. 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-sec. (2), shall be effected by the Village Accountant having jurisdiction or other person authorised by the Panchayat in this behalf. At the time of the alleged offence, the amendment had come into force and the only person who could have presented the bill under sub-sec. (1) and who could have served the writ of demand under sub-sec. (2) was the village Accountant. PW. 1, who was the Secretary, had no legal authority to execute the warrant. The warrant authorising the Secretary (PW. 1) to recover the tax from Irappa, therefore, was obviously illegal. ( 5 ) IN that case it is obvious that in the first instance S. 353 IPC 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 ilegality, 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 PWs. 3 and 4 who were present have nonsupported the case of the prosecution; PW. 1 in examination-in-chief has stated that the petitioner shouted and drove the cattle. He has not staled that he snouted at him and drove the cattle when they were being detained by PWs. 3 and 4. In cross-examination he has tried to implicate the petiitoner. PW. 2 has given a different version. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner assaulted or used criminal force to PW. 1. The petitioner could not therefore be held guilty of the offeree under Section 353 IPC. 3 and 4. In cross-examination he has tried to implicate the petiitoner. PW. 2 has given a different version. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner assaulted or used criminal force to PW. 1. The petitioner could not therefore be held guilty of the offeree under Section 353 IPC. I set aside the conviction and sentence of fine passed upon the petitioner and direct that if fine amount has been paid, it should be refunded to him. --- *** --- .