Short Note : The material facts are that on 24-7-70 at about 4 p.m., Mr. Bhopal Rao Pawar, the State Minister of Education, pursuant to his scheduled programme was addressing a meeting of teachers in the Tagore Hall of the Higher Secondary School, Durg. The petitioner, a removed teacher, asked the Minister a certain question and when not heeded to, threw one of his shoes at him The shoe missing its target fell on the dias resulting in the disturbance of the meeting. 2. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, who tried the case finding that no offence punishable under section 452 IPC, had been committed, acquitted the petitioner of that charge but finding that he had committed the offence punishable under section 353 IPC, sentenced him to pay Rs. 200/- fine and in the event of non-payment of it to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. His appeal to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg proved futile, he went up in revision. 3. The petitioner, accused, raised mainly two contentions. Firstly, that a Minister is not a public servant, but is one of the persons specified under section 124 IPC. The second contention was that his intention not being to use criminal force against or assault the concerned Minister, but being only co attract his attention, he has hot committed the offence punishable under section 353, IPC. Held : I find that there is no force in the first contention. A Minister is a public servant because he falls under Clause twelfth (a) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. That sub-Clause runs as follows: "Every person- (a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commissions for the performance of any public duty by the Government." A Minister of a State is appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister of that State and as such is a public servant, (See also State of Vindhya Pradesh v. Shiva Bahadur Singh and another, AIR 1951 U.P. 17). A Minister is not a person falling under section 124 IPC, which is concerned only with the President of India or the Governor of a State. 4. There is also no force in the other contention simply because the petitioner chose a strange and novel way of attracting one's attention. A Minister is not a person falling under section 124 IPC, which is concerned only with the President of India or the Governor of a State. 4. There is also no force in the other contention simply because the petitioner chose a strange and novel way of attracting one's attention. The fact of throwing his shoe amounts to the using of force within the meaning of Clause secondly under section 349, IPC. It was directed towards Mr. Bhopal Rao Pawar, Minister of Education (P.W.12) who as already seen was a public servant and according to him and other unimpeachable evidence of K.R. Banjore (P.W.7), Rawalmal Jain (P.W.8), Suresh Purushottam Sabnis (P.W.10), John Sangit Kumar Peter (P.W.12) and Ramayan Prasad Dwivedi he, in addressing teachers, was discharging his duty as a public servant. The petitioner has been rightly found guilty of offence punishable under section 363 IPC. 5. This much, however, has to be said for the petitioner that he was a disappointed and disgruntled young man of 27 years who had lost his service and his all attempts to secure reemployment in spite of reassurances given to him from time to time had proved futile. It was in this context that when according to Rawalmal Jain (PW8) Mr. Bhopal Rao Pawar had asked a certain question regarding unemployed persons; someone (not other than the accused) was heard putting a counter-question But Mr. Bhopal Rao Pawar's speech continued unabated when the petitioner threw a shoe which fell on his dias. But the petitioner has already been dealt with leniently by being fined in a sum of only Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Revision dismissed.