Judgment Muneshwari Sahay, J. 1. Petitioner Kalipada Ghosh was employed as an assistant Engineer in the Muzaffarpur Electricity Supply Company. One Shr k. R. Rajgopalan was at that time Resident Engineer of that Company. It so happened that the electric supply in certain areas of the town was interrupted on 9.11.1970. When a complaint was made to the Resident Engineer about the same he directed the petitioner to attend the same. The petitioner, however, replied that the break down of the electricity supply could not be restored as hs had no weather proof cable with him. On the following day i. e.10.11.1970 at about 4.50 p. m. the Resident Engineer summoned the petitioner in his office and it, is alleged that he tried to impress upon the petitioner that he should maintain some stock of material to bs used in emergency. The Resident Engineer (P. W.5)himself stated in his evidence that he also cautioned the petitioner with regard to the performance of his duties and responsibility. It was alleged that thereupon the petitioner assaulted the Resident Engineer while he was sitting in his office and the Resident Engineer was saved from further assault by the intervention of some office staff. 2. The Resident Engineer lodged information about the occurrence with the police and eventually the petitioner was put on trial for offences under sections 323 and 355 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court found him guilty under both the charges and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under section 355 and one month under section 323 of the Indian penal Code. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, muzaffarpur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the appeal, maintained the conviction of the petitioner but reduced the sentence under section 355 of the Indian Penal Code to the payment of a fine of Rs.500 and, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. No separate sentence was passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is against this conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner that he has come up before this court. The application was admitted on the question of sentence only. No separate sentence was passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is against this conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner that he has come up before this court. The application was admitted on the question of sentence only. But the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that conviction of the petitioner under section 355 of the Indian Penal Code was based on no evidence and therefore, this court should examine the legality of that conviction as well. I have, accordingly, allowed the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the State to address me on this question. 4. The fact that the petitioner had assaulted the Resident Engineer is not open to challenge in this application and indeed no attempt has been made before me to challenge this on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, so far as the conviction of the petitioner under section 323 of the Indian Penal code is concerned that stands. 5. Section 355 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus : "whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonour that person, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. " It will, therefore, be noticed that the intention with which the assault is made is an important ingredient of the offence under the section, in order, therefore, that the petitioner can be found guilty under section 355 of the Indian Penal Code it has to be held that he assaulted the Resident Engineer with the intention of dishonouring him. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court, however, have examined this aspect of the case in their judgment. In paragraph 17 of its judgment the trial court has stated thus : "in view of the evidence discussed above, I am led to hold that evidence of the P. Ws. are quite consistent on the point that, at the relevant time and place, the accused Engineer voluntarily assaulted the resident engineer and thereby, dishonoure him. " The learned Munsif Magistrate appeared to be of the view that by the mere fact that the Resident Engineer had been assaulted by the accused Engineer, he had been dishonoured. are quite consistent on the point that, at the relevant time and place, the accused Engineer voluntarily assaulted the resident engineer and thereby, dishonoure him. " The learned Munsif Magistrate appeared to be of the view that by the mere fact that the Resident Engineer had been assaulted by the accused Engineer, he had been dishonoured. In my opinion what the prosecution had to prove to bring home the charge under section 355 of the Indian Penal Code is that the assault was made with the intention of dishonouring the victim. 6. The appellate court in paragraph 9 of its judgment writes : "on a consideration of the evidence and circumstances disclosed in the case the charges under sections 355 and 323 Indian Code appear to have been satisfactorily made out against the appellant and he has been rightly held guilty thereunder and I find accordingly". Nowhere in its judgment the appellate court appears to have examined as to whether the assault had been made with the intention of dishonouring the resident Engineer. 7 Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in the circumstances of the case it is established that the petitioner has assaulted the Resident Engineer with the intention of dishonouring him. The circumstances relied upon are : (1) that the assault was made during the office hours ; (2) that the assault was made when the Resident Engineer was sitting on his chair in his office ; and (3) that the assault was made in presence of some of his staff. In my opinion, these circumstances cannot lead to the inference that the assault had been made with the intention to dishonour Resident Engineer. The evidence of the Resident Engineer (P. W.5) itself shows that it was he who had summoned the petitioner in his office at about 4.50 p. m. on the date and he had not only tried to impress upon the petitioner to maintain some stock of material to attend break down in electricity supply in cases of emergency but he had also actually warned him to be careful in the discharging of his duties and responsibilities. Possibly, the petitioner was worked up because he was sent for and reprimanded by the Resident Engineer for his failure to restore the electric supply on the previous day and it was because of this that he indulged in the assault. Possibly, the petitioner was worked up because he was sent for and reprimanded by the Resident Engineer for his failure to restore the electric supply on the previous day and it was because of this that he indulged in the assault. There is nothing in the evidence of the Resident Engineer or for the matter of that in the evidence of any other witnesses to suggest that the petitioner had assaulted the resident Engineer with the intention of dishonouring him. I am thus satisfied that on the evidence and circumstances of the case no offence of section 355 of the indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioner.7. This question, however, has only academic interest in this case. As already pointed out the petitioners conviction under section 323 of the Indian penal code shall stand. The appellate court, of course, had not imposed a separate sentence on the petitioner under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Regard being had to the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner, in my view, the sentence of payment of fine of Rs.500 cannot be considered as an excessive. Result, therefore, is that the conviction and sentences imposed upon the petitioner under section 355 of the Indian Penal Code are hereby set aside, the petitioners conviction under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed. He is sentenced under section 323 of the Code to pay a fine of Rs.500 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. With the aforesaid modifictions on the questions of conviction and sentence the application is dismissed. Application dismissed.