JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - The Petitioner was tried for an offence u/s 332, I.P.C. while his co-accused Kasinath Sabat stood his trial for an offence u/s 332/114, I.P.C. The trial court convicted the Petitioner u/s 332, I.P.C. and sentenced him thereunder to R.I. for six months. Accused Kasinath was, however, found guilty of the offence u/s 332/109, I.P.C. and was sentenced thereunder to R.I. for one month. Both the Petitioner and accused Kasinath preferred separate appeals against their conviction before the Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna. The Additional District & Sessions Judge. Bhawanipatna who heard both the appeals together confirmed the order of conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeals by a common judgment dated 6-8-1979. The Petitioner has filed this revision challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court as upheld in appeal. Accused Kasinath has not come before this Court in revision. 2. While admitting the revision, this Court observed that if the offence was true the sentence imposed was inadequate and accordingly issued notice of enhancement of the sentence. 3. It is well settled that the High Court functions as a full-fledged appellate court when a notice of enhancement is issued and in that event it gives a full-dress hearing to the parties concerned both on factual aspects as also on points of law. Accordingly, counsel for both sides advanced detailed arguments both on facts as well as on points of law. 4. The prosecution case shortly stated is that one B. Anand Rao (P.W. 1), a Train Ticket Examiner of the South-Eastern Railway, was on duty on 27-7-1976 in the 416-Down Waltair-Raipur Passenger Train from Muniguda Railway Station to Titilagarh Railway Station. On that day, the Railway Magistrate posted of Kantabanji was holding his mobile court and several Train Ticket Examiners were engaged to check tickets of the passengers. Several passengers got into a compartment of the said train at Narala Road Railway Station in which P.W.1 was checking the tickets. When the train was about to reach Rupra Road Railway Station, P.W. 1 found the Petitioner in the compartment travelling without ticket. As the Petitioner could not produce the ticket on demand, P.W. 1 calculated the amount payable by the Petitioner towards fare and penalty and asked him to pay the money, In the meantime, the train reached Rupra Road Railway Station. As the Petitioner could not produce the ticket on demand, P.W. 1 calculated the amount payable by the Petitioner towards fare and penalty and asked him to pay the money, In the meantime, the train reached Rupra Road Railway Station. The Petitioner got down from the train at the said railway station and without paying the money attempted to get away. P.W. 1 made efforts to prevent the Petitioner's escape by holding him by his hand whereupon the Petitioner is alleged to have forcibly extricated himself from the grip of P.W. 1 and assaulted P.W. 1 with fist blows, While the Petitioner was dealing first blows on P.W. 1, his co-accused Kasinath was investigating him to beat P.W. 1 with chappals. At that time some other railway men who were working in the train arrived there and prevented further assault on P.W. 1, P.W. 1 then sent a report about the incident from Titilagarh to the G.R.P. at Rayagada through a Railway Guard. As a result of the assault, P.W. 1 sustained injuries on his face and on account of the fall during the assault he sustained injuries on his knee. 5. The Petitioner and his co-accused Kasinath pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and denied to have been involved in any occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. 6. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses to prove its case. P.W. 1 is the victim Train Ticket Examiner who was assaulted by the Petitioner P.W. 2 is another Train Ticket Examiner of the South-Eastern Railway who was on duty in the train in question on the date of occurrence and is alleged to be an eye-witness. P.W. 3 is the Station Master of Ambadola Railway Station. P.W. 4 is the Medical Officer of the Railway Hospital at Titilagarh who examined P.W. 1 and found some injuries on his right cheek and knee joint. P.W. 5 is a T.T. Porter of the South. Eastern Railway who is stated to be an eye-witness P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer who on receipt of the written report Ext. 1 from P.W. 1 drew up the formal F.I.R. and took up investigation of the case. P.W. 7 was the Station Master of Rupra Road Railway Station on the date of occurrence. 7. Eastern Railway who is stated to be an eye-witness P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer who on receipt of the written report Ext. 1 from P.W. 1 drew up the formal F.I.R. and took up investigation of the case. P.W. 7 was the Station Master of Rupra Road Railway Station on the date of occurrence. 7. The essential ingredients of the offence u/s 332, I.P.C. are: (1) Hurt must have been caused to a public servant; and (2) It must have been caused (a) while such public servant was acting in the discharge of his duty as such, or (b) in order to prevent or deter him from his charging his duty as public servant, or (c) in consequence of his having done or attempted to do anything in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant. 8. There is no dispute that P.W. 1 who was working as a Train Ticket Examiner on the date of occurrence was a public servant. The acts alleged by the prosecution to have been done by die Petitioner would certainly amount to an offence u/s 332, I.P.C. in case it is found that the Petitioner assaulted P.W. 1 when the latter demanded the ticket from him. This is so because P.W. 1 while working as Train Ticket Examiner was a public servant and was acting in discharge of his duty as such. According to the prosecution case, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence on the basis of whose evidence the Petitioner has been convicted. P.W. 1 is the victim. His evidence is that he demanded the ticket from the Petitioner before the train reached Rupra Road Railway Station. By the time the train reached Rupra Road Railway Station, P.W. 1 had already calculated the amount payable by the Petitioner towards fare and penalty. According to P.W. 1, the Petitioner wanted to get down from the compartment without paying the fare and the penalty calculated by him when P.W. 1 stopped him by holding him by his hand. The Petitioner thereafter extricated himself' forcibly from the grip of P.W. 1. In his examination-in-chief he has stated: The train moved, and when it was about to reach Rupra Road Railway Station I found accused Sekhar Das (Petitioner) travelling in that compartment without a ticket. When I asked for his ticket, he could not produce it. The Petitioner thereafter extricated himself' forcibly from the grip of P.W. 1. In his examination-in-chief he has stated: The train moved, and when it was about to reach Rupra Road Railway Station I found accused Sekhar Das (Petitioner) travelling in that compartment without a ticket. When I asked for his ticket, he could not produce it. I then calculated the amount payable by him by way of fare and penalty and asked him to pay it. By then the train reached Rupra Road Railway Station. The accused wanted to get down from the compartment without paying the railway fare and penalty. Then I stopped him from doing so by holding his hand. On a reading of the statement of P.W. 1 in. examination-in-chief, it appears that the occurrence according to him took place inside the compartment. But in cross-examination P.W. 1 has stated: Accused Sekhar Das (Petitioner) got down from the compartment. As he was going away I got down from the compartment and held his hand. In paragraph 11 of his cross-examination, he has further stated: I was beaten by the accused (Petitioner) on the platform when I was running after him. Thus the statement of P.W. 1 in examination-in-chief and his evidence in cross-examination regarding the place of occurrence are quite contradictory. The other eye-witness, P.W. 5, has stated that he was present in the compartment and assisted P.W. 1 in checking the tickets. He, does not speak about P.W. 1 calculating the railway fare and the penalty payable by the Petitioner. He has stated that the Petitioner who was travelling in the compartment in question failed to produce his ticket when demanded by P.W. 1 whereafter P.W. 1 gave his bag to P.W. 5 and told him that he would produce the Petitioner before the Magistrate for having travelled in the train without ticket, According to P.W. 5, the Petitioner wanted to get down and go away when P.W. 1, with a view to stop him from doing so, held him by his hand. The Petitioner then forcibly extricated himself and dealt fist blows on P.W. 1 and the latter fell down. According to this witness, P.W. 2, another Train Ticket Examiner, and an R. P. F. Constable came there at that time. The Petitioner then forcibly extricated himself and dealt fist blows on P.W. 1 and the latter fell down. According to this witness, P.W. 2, another Train Ticket Examiner, and an R. P. F. Constable came there at that time. Thus according to P.W. 5, the assault on P.W. 1 as over by the time P.W. 2 and the R. P. F. Constable came there P.W. 2 also admits that he had not seen the Petitioner beating P.W. 1. The R.P.F. Constable who is said to have come to the place of occurrence with P.W. 2 has not been examined. Thus, the only eye-witness apart from the victim (P.W. 1) is P.W. 5. P.W. 5 is a railway employee and was assisting P.W. 1 in checking the tickets of the passengers on the date of occurrence. He is therefore, a witness interested in the success of the prosecution case. There are material contradictions between the evidence of P.W. 1 and that of P.W. 5 so far as the place and time of occurrence and their subsequent conduct after the occurrence are concerned. P.W. 1 in his evidence has stated that after he detected the Petitioner to be travelling without ticket he calculated the amount payable by the Petitioner towards fare and penalty and demanded payment thereof. The Petitioner instead of paying the amount wanted to run away as a result of which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. The above statement of P.W. 1 has not been corroborated either by P.W. 5 or by producing documentary, evidence that was evidently available. The Ticket Book which P.W. 1 was supposed to fill up before demanding the amount from the Petitioner has not been produced in this case and no explanation has been offered for its non-production P.W. 1 admits that he did not raise hullah while he was being assaulted. But the statement of P.W. 2 is to the effect that he came out of the compartment on hearing the shout raised by P.W. 1. According to P.W. 2, by the time he reached the place of occurrence he found P.W. 1 trying to catch hold of the Petitioner who was attempting to run away and both were in a fighting mood. The above statement suggests that there was no assault on P.W. 1 by that time. According to P.W. 2, by the time he reached the place of occurrence he found P.W. 1 trying to catch hold of the Petitioner who was attempting to run away and both were in a fighting mood. The above statement suggests that there was no assault on P.W. 1 by that time. P.W. 1 could have taken the help of the railway police or reported the matter to the authorities concerned, but he has not done that. In his evidence P.W. 1 has admitted: We (meaning the T.T.Es.) cannot physically trouble the passengers. We can only demand all dues. Admittedly, a Mobile Magistrate was available in the train itself. P.W. 5 does not speak of any attempt having been made to inform the Railway Magistrate or even the railway police about the incident. P.W. 1 in order to explain his conduct says that the Railway Magistrate was sitting in the first class compartment in the rear portion of the train and as the train started moving, he had no opportunity to go and report a bout the incident to him. P.W. 2, however, says that P.W. 1 went to the Railway Magistrate to report about the occurrence, but as he could not find him out, he could not do so. P.W. 1 has further admitted in his cross-examination, that he did not inform the Railway Magistrate even at the next stoppage of the train at Kandee Road railway station. According to P.W. 1, he along with P.W. 2 verbally informed the Magistrate about the incident when the train reached Titilagarh railway station. P.W. 1 could have submitted a written report about the occurrence to the Magistrate; instead he sent a written report, Ext. 1, which he had prepared in the train to be presented, at the G. R Police Station at Rayagada through a Guard of the goods train being in that direction The conduct of P.W. 1 in not immediately informing the Railway Magistrate who was travelling in the very train for dealing with such offence creates doubt as to whether the Petitioner was at all involved in the occurrence. Even if such an occurrence took place, it is difficult to come to a positive conclusion on the evidence on record that the Petitioner assaulted P.W. 1 Admittedly, neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 5 had any occasion of seeing the Petitioner before or after the occurrence. Even if such an occurrence took place, it is difficult to come to a positive conclusion on the evidence on record that the Petitioner assaulted P.W. 1 Admittedly, neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 5 had any occasion of seeing the Petitioner before or after the occurrence. Their identification of the Petitioner in court is, therefore, without any basis. According to P.W. 1, he demanded the fare and the penalty from the Petitioner. As already stated, the Ticket Book or any document in support of the demand has not been produced in court. Therefore, it is not known as to how P.W. 1 came to know the name of the Petitioner. P.W. 5 has admitted that except accused Kasinath he had not identified any other person at Rupra Road railway station. In these circumstances identification of the Petitioner alleged to be present at the place of occurrence, is doubtful 8. The investigation in this case does not appear to be satisfactory. The Investigating Officer, P.W. 6, admits that he does not remember if he had been to Titilagarh or to any other place for the purpose of investigation of the case and that he has not noted about it in the case diary. He also states that he did not ask any witness to identify the Petitioner on 28-7-1976. 9. Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defence. D.W. 1 is a Homoeopathic practitioner. He has stated on oath that he was waiting at Rupra Road railway Station on 27-7-1976 to receive some of his relatives who were expected by the Waltair-Raipur train. He was present when some heated altercation took place between P.W. 1 on the one hand and 10-15 people at the platform on the other. It is he and some other persons named by him who intervened and subsided the quarrel. He says that the Petitioner was not amongst that group. D.W. 2 is a business man. According to him, he was present at the platform on 27-7-1976 when the train in question arrived at the station. He witnessed a but exchange of words between P.W. 1 and a group of other persons and he along with D.W. 1 and others separated them. He also says that the Petitioner was not present there P.W. 7 was the Station Master of Rupra Road railway station. He witnessed a but exchange of words between P.W. 1 and a group of other persons and he along with D.W. 1 and others separated them. He also says that the Petitioner was not present there P.W. 7 was the Station Master of Rupra Road railway station. In cross-examination he admits that it is D.W. 1 and come others who intervened and subsided the quarrel. Thus D.W. 1 was admittedly present at the place of occurrence. Nothing has been elicited from D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 in cross-examination which would make their testimony unworthy of credit. 10. Thus, on a careful consideration of the evidence on record, I am satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the Petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. 11. In the result, the revision succeeds. The orders of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below against the Petitioner are set aside and the Petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The notice of enhancement is discharged.