1. The petitioners before this Court were accused 1 and 2 in the Court of the Additional Munsiff - cum - First Class Magistrate, Udipi, in C. C. No. 624 of 1970. They, along with accused 3 to 5, were prosecuted for committing an offence under S.160, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate found all the five accused guilty of the offence under S.160, I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced each of the accused to a fine of Rs. 5/-, in default to undergo S. I. for 7 days. In this revision, the petitioners (accused 1 and 2) challenge the legality and correctness of the said conviction and sentence passed on them.

2. Sri P. Viswanatha Shetty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the two essential ingredients of the offence under S.160, I.P.C. He argues that there is no evidence on record to show that there was a fight between the petitioners and others and that the fight took place in a public place. Mere scolding or quarrelling in a public place would not come within the definition of 'affray' as laid down in S.159, I.P.C.
It is contended that an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for not examining mat