On nth January, 1967 the cycle of the son of Srinivasa Chetty was detained by the Municipal Inspector, P.W. 1 for want of a licence. The boy went and brought his father who slapped P.W. I on his cheek and took away the cycle from him by force. The evidence of P.W. 1 who proves these facts is corroborated by P.W. 2. P.W. 3 received the complaint from P.W. 1 and sent P.W. 1 and the complaint to the Police Station. P.W. 4, the doctor, speaks to the injury sustained by P.W. 1.

Accepting this evidence, the Additional First Class Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of an offence under section 332, Indian Penal Code.

P.W. 1 admits in the course of his cross-examination that if the cycle had village licence he would not demand licence and states that the boy Chelapathi, son of the accused, did not tell him that he had village licence. Exhibit D-2 is the village licence for 1966-67 for the second half year. It has been issued in the name of the accused. M.O. 2 is the disc in respect of that licence. It emerges from the evidence that the cycle did not carry this disc. The argument of Mr. Ramaswami is that inasmuch as the cycle in question had the licence from the Village Panchayat a