Judgement ORDER :- It was argued by the learned counsel Mr. Ramachandran that when the revision petitioner threatened to kill the Revenue Inspector for lawfully distraining his properties, that would not amount to the offence of assault, for which he has been convicted under S. 353 I.P.C. I agree. If the words had been accompanied by any gesture - but unfortunately regarding which there is no evidence - that would certainly amount to assault. In this case, however, the offence would clearly fall under Sec. 503 I.P.C. namely, the offence of criminal intimidation. The illustration given in this section is appropriate to this case. "A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn Bs house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation."The revision petitioner for the purpose of inducing the revenue inspector to desist from distraining his properties, threatened to kill the revenue inspector, and therefore he is guilty of criminal intimidation. The conviction is altered from S. 353 I.P.C. to S. 503 I.P.C. The sentence is maintained. The revision petition is dismissed. Conviction altered but sentence maintained.