JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated October 3, 1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the present petitioner Under Section 228, I.P.C. 2. The petitioner is working as a peon in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar. On October 5, 1990, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was sitting in his Court and was discharging his judicial functions. At that time, the petitioner entered in the Court dragging the sleeper and making noise. When he was asked by the learned Additional Sessions Judge how he was doing like that then the petitioner said that it was his habit and no Presiding Officer has, so far, objected in his doing so. The noise created by dragging the sleepers obstruction in the working of the Presiding Officer. This was done by the petitioner-accused in the presence of Khoob Chand, Mr. Yogi Kumar Advocate, Om Prakash, Mr. Moolchand Advocate, Vishamber Das Reader and Neki Ram, L.D.C., who were present in the Court at that time. The learned Additional Sessions Judge treated this action of the accused-petitioner as obstruction in the discharge of his judicial working and he, therefore, took cognizance against the petitioner Under Section 228, I.P.C. and when the accused-petitioner appeared before him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge staid the particulars of the offence to him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, thereafter, convicted the petitioner Under Section 228, I.P.C., treating the statement made by the petitioner as the plea of guilt. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner never pleaded guilty and the learned lower Court has convicted the petitioner without his plea of guilt. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has, also, submitted that no offence Under Section 228, I.P.C. has been made-out against the petitioner in the instant case. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. 6. It appears from the judgment passed by the learned lower Court that the petitioner never pleaded guilty but he has stated before the Court as mentioned in para 4 of the judgment. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. 6. It appears from the judgment passed by the learned lower Court that the petitioner never pleaded guilty but he has stated before the Court as mentioned in para 4 of the judgment. The petitioner has merely stated that if dragging the sleepers is an offence then he will be careful in future. According to the learned trial Court, the same was repeated twice. It has, also, been mentioned that it was stated by the petitioner that dragging the sleepers is his habit since his childhood. 7. For proving the offence Under Section 228, I.P.C. it is necessary that the following three things should be proved: (i) the intention of the petitioner; (ii) insult or interruption to a public servant, and (iii) the public servant interrupted and insulted must be sitting in any state of judicial proceeding. If we look-into the present case, and the facts narrated by the learned lower Court in its judgment, then neither the intention nor any insult or interruption to a public servant by the petitioner has been proved. The act of the petitioner cannot be said as such which, in any way, amounts to an insult or interruption in the discharge of the judicial proceedings by a public servant. 8. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no offence appears to have been committed by the accused petitioner Under Section 228, I.P.C. There is one other aspect of the case. Under Section 345, Cr. P.C. the procedure has been provided in cases of contempt. According to Section 345(1) Cr. P.C., the Presiding Officer is authorised to detain the offender before the rising of the Court and after that he had to take cognizance and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the offender why he should not be punished, and to sentence the offender to a fine not exceeding Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to one month's simple imprisonment unless the fine is not paid. Sub-section (2) of Section 345 Cr. P.C. provides that the Court shall record the fact constituting the offence with the statement, if any, made by the petitioner, as well as the finding of sentence. Sub-section (3) of Section 345, Cr. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to one month's simple imprisonment unless the fine is not paid. Sub-section (2) of Section 345 Cr. P.C. provides that the Court shall record the fact constituting the offence with the statement, if any, made by the petitioner, as well as the finding of sentence. Sub-section (3) of Section 345, Cr. P.C. provides that the record should show the nature and stage of judicial proceedings in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting and the nature of the interruption or insult. Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that if the Court wanted to pass a sentence of imprisonment then after recording the facts constituting the offence and filing a complaint in the Court of other Magistrate, who has jurisdiction to try the case, but he himself cannot pass an order of conviction. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not followed the procedure provided Under Section 345, Criminal Procedure Code and has passed the sentence of four days, for which he was not competent to do Under Section 345, Cr. P.C. Under Section 345, Cr. P.C. he was competent only to pass a sentence of fine. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Under Section 345, Cr. P.C, has no power to pass an order of imprisonment. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned lower Court is not sustainable. 9. In the result, I allow the revision petition filed by the petitioner, set-aside the order dated August 5, 1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, and acquit the petitioner.Revision allowed. *******