LAXMESHWAR, J. ( 1 ) THE facts of the case in brief are:- that on 15-1-1989, at about 10 A. M. accused abused CW-1 Gurudatta Naik in a public place and on public street in the Court premises of the Additional Munsiff and j. M. F. C. , Bantwal, in indecent way and also in an insulting manner. Then CW-1 lodged a complaint against the accused. The Police sub-Inspector, Buntawal, after investigation chargesheeted the accused for the offence alleged above. ( 2 ) THE learned Magistrate, after appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary and after hearing the Counsel on both sides convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 92 (l) (o) and (r) of the Karnataka Police Act, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 251- for each count, in default to undergo S. I. for one day. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused filed the above Criminal revision petition in the high Court, challenging the said order of conviction and sentence. ( 3 ) MR. Chouta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate, is not sustainable in law and it does not fall within the mischief of Section 92 of the police Act. He invited my attention to section 92 (1) (o) and (r) of the Karnataka police Act, and submitted that where it was a local area, the Government by notification in the Official Gazette from time to time extends the provisions of the sub-section or any clause thereof, whoever acts contrary thereto would be liable for prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove the most important ingredient, i. e. the allegation made by the prosecution took place in such an area. Therefore, it is submitted that it does not attract the provisions of Section 92 (1) of the Karnataka Police Act. He invited my attention to two decisions of this Court, which are very clear on the point. As against this the learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly convicted the accused, on the material placed before him. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate is sustainable in law. ( 4 ) SECTION 92 (1) (o) and (r) reads as under:-"92. As against this the learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly convicted the accused, on the material placed before him. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate is sustainable in law. ( 4 ) SECTION 92 (1) (o) and (r) reads as under:-"92. PUNISHMENT OF CERTAIN street OFFENCES AND NUISANCES:- (1) In any local area to which the government by notification in the official Gazette from time to time extends this sub-section or any clause thereof, whoever, contrary thereto,- (o) wilfully and indecently exposes his person, uses indecent language or behaves indecently or riotously or in a disorderly manner in a street or place of public resort, or in any public office; (r) uses in any street any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or posts up or affixes or exhibits any indecent, threatening, abusive or insulting paper or drawing with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of peace may be occasioned; learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also invited my attention to sub-section 2 of Section 92 of the Act, which reads as under:- " (2) (a) The provisions of sub-section (1) or any clause or clauses thereof may be extended by the State Government by notification,- (i) to such local area as may be specified in such notification; or (ii) to such local area for such periods as may be specified in such notification. "this has not been done or not shown before the Court. In the absence of the same, the petitioner cannot be convicted. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel Mr. Chouta appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Middu suvama v State of Mysore, 1970 (1) Mysore law Journal, Page 147, in which it is laid down as under:-"an offence under section 92 (1) (o) is committed only when the act to which that clause refers is committed in contravention of the notification in the official gazette by which the provisions of section 92 (1) are extended to a local area. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that there was a contravention of the notification. "in another decision of this Court reported at Short Notes Item No. 50 1976 (1) Karnataka Law Journal at page 91 of short Notes of Cases. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that there was a contravention of the notification. "in another decision of this Court reported at Short Notes Item No. 50 1976 (1) Karnataka Law Journal at page 91 of short Notes of Cases. His Lordship, therein was pleased to hold that where the magistrate convicted the accused under section 92 (1), Police Act and passed a sentence of fine of Rs. 100/-, an appeal therefrom is barred by Section 376 (c ). And that in a prosecution under Section 92 (1) police Act, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that there was promulgation of a notification to which Section 92 (1) refers and an opportunity should be given to the accused to challenge it. Wherefore, I think that there is some force in the contention of mr. Chouta, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the accused cannot be convicted unless a notification to this effect has been issued by the Government. The prosecution has failed to prove that notification was issued by Court, wherefore, the order of conviction is not sustainable in law. I think that there is some force in the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the order of conviction is liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed in Criminal Case No. 155/1989 by the J. M. F. C, Bantwal, on 28-4-1989 is set aside. The petitioner is acquitted. The bail bonds stand cancelled. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner. --- *** --- .