Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.
1. The order of the appellate Magistrate is clearly wrong. After having found that Section 159(1) had no application, he went on to convict the accused under Section 163(1). No charge was framed under this latter section. The accused was not tried for that offence, or convicted by the lower Court for any such offence I cannot possibly see what right the appellate Magistrate had, to confirm the conviction, on the ground that the offence under a different section, not charged against the accused, was made out. Further, there is absolutely no evidence that an offence even under the section, he referred to, had really been committed by the accused, because there is no reliable evidence that what was done by the accused caused any obstruction on the road. In these circumstances, the conviction of the accused is clearly wrong. The Public Prosecutor has also fairly intimated to me that he cannot possibly support the conviction. In these circumstances, the conviction is set aside and the fine, if levied, will be refunded to the accused.