Hemeon, J.

[1] The applicant Maganbhai of Gondia was convicted and sentenced to undergo 4 months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 353, Penal Code by the Second Class Magistrate, Gondia; and in appeal, the appellate Magistrate, Bhandara, affirmed the conviction but replaced the sentence by a fine of Rs. 500/ -. The applicant has now come up in revision to this Court.

[2] The prosecution case was, briefly stated, as follows. On 1. 11. 1950, V. N. Kukde (P. W. 6) , Sub-Inspector. Central Excise, went, in accordance with the Superintendent's direction, to the applicant's godown in order to verify the stock of tobacco in it before issuing a permit for removing that commodity from it. When he met the applicant and apprised him of this, the applicant asked him to produce a written order from the Superintendent and refused to weigh the stock. V. N. Kukde then asked him to accompany him to the Superintendent, but he became angry and announced that he would not do so or weigh the stock, V. N. Kukde in formed him that unless the weighments were made, a fresh permit would not be issued and the applicant gave an angry answer. V. N. Kukde accordingly returned to the Superintendent to whom he reported the matter and who deputed Mahabub (P. W. 2) , Naik, Central Excise Department, to accompany him to the applicant's shop.

[3] On arrival there, the applicant abused V. N. Kukde vulgarly and ran to beat him with a shoe, but Mahabub intervened, caught him and prevented him from hitting V. N. Kukde. The latter then went to an adjoining shop and sent Mahabub with a letter to the Superintendent. The latter deputed M. M. Pathak (P. W. 4) , Range Officer, Central Excise, to accompany him to the applicant's shop. The applicant at first refused to permit the weighment of his stock but eventually agreed to this, and on M. M. Pathak's advice left the shop in order to avoid a quarrel with V. N. Kukde. Later on at about 5. 15 p. m. the weighment began but at about 6 p. m. the applicant after his return wanted it to scope pointed out that he had guests in the house and complained that he was being harassed. The weighment then continued, in spite of the applicant's periodical obstruction; and the applicant ran towards his shop with a cane with which to beat V. N. Kukde whom he was abusing filthily. M. M. Pathak told V. N. Kukde to leave the shop and when the applicant saw him on the road, he turned towards him but some bystanders intervened and took him-away. V. N. Kukde thereafter made the report Ex. P-1 to Y. K. Uttarwar (P. W. 1) , Sub-Inspector, who carried out the investigation and had the applicant duly identified.

[4] The applicant in examination denied that he had questioned V. N. Kukde's authority, that he had rushed towards him with a shoe in order to beat him or that he had abused him filthily. He admitted that M. M. Pathak had come to his shop subsequently, but he denied that his stock of tobacco was in excess of the amount noted by him or that he had again abused V. N. Kukde, or that having snatched the cane article A from N. P. Tiwari (P. W. 5) he had rushed at V. N. Kukde in order to attack him with it. In defence, he asserted his innocence and claimed that he had been falsely implicated because of V. N. Kukde's animus to him. Two witnesses were examined in defence, but their evidence was apparently not accepted by-the two Courts below.

[5] In argument the applicant's learned Counsel Shri G. B. Badkas raised the cogent contention that the trial Court was not empowered to take cognisance of the case without a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he was subordinate, inasmuch as Section 195 (1) (a) , Criminal P. C. requires a complaint of that kind in respect of any offence punishable under 'inter alia' Section 186, Penal Code. Here the charge-sheet refers to Sections 353 and 186 ibid'; and the order-sheet, dated 11. 12. 1950, shows that the trial Court had noted this and directed the