1. The petitioner was convicted by the 2nd class Magistrate of Pullampet under Section 183, Indian Penal Code, of resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant, and sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. On appeal the Sub-Divisional Magistrate confirmed the sentence, but altered the finding to one of an offence under Section 186, Indian Penal Code, and the only question now is, whether the ingredients of the offence have been made out. On behalf of the petitioner it is urged that there was nothing more on his part than non-compliance with an order which he was not bound to obey. On the part of the Crown it is argued that there was active obstruction, and a threatened breach of the peace. There is nothing in the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, to lead us to think that it was the petitioner who gathered the crowd, nor on referring to the evidence of the commissioner do we think that it can be hold that it was through the instrumentality of the prisoner that the crowd came together. It would seem to have been a very orderly crowd which collected upon hearing that an inventory was to be made of all the