S S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the acquittal of the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 780f 1982 by Sessions Judge, Raigarh, Camp Jashpurnagar vide judgment dated 20-7-1982. ( 2 ) THE charges against the respondent were for offence under Sections 170 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code. The date of the incident is said to be 20-9-1981. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jashpurnagar in Criminal Case No. 244 of 1982 acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted him under Section 170 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. It was against that conviction and sentence that the respondent preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge and the respondent was accordingly acquitted. Feeling aggrieved, the State bas preferred his appeal. ( 3 ) THE respondent was produced from jail on 26. 10. 1983. He was asked whether he needs the assistance of any counsel which could be provided to him either through Legal Aid Committee or through the Registry or even of the amicus curiae but the respondent insisted that he would argue his own case and does not need assistance of any counsel. Accordingly the Government Advocate and the respondent were partly heard on 26. 10. 1983 and the arguments were concluded on 27. 10. 1983. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION case briefly stated is that the respondent on 20. 9. 1981 in Kunkuri introduced himself as an officer of R. A. W. and thereafter he visited the hostels under Shri Jam (P. W. 5 ). ( 5 ) THE version of M. K. Jam (P. W. 5) is that in the evening when he returned back to his house from the market he saw the respondent sitting at his house along with a Sub Engineer. The respondent is alleged to have told Shri Jam that he is a correspondent of daily news paper Statesman and he has come to collect information. Shri Jam (P. W. 5) then told the respondent that he should better contact the Collector, Raigarh or Additional Collector, Jashpurnagar and get orders from them for collecting information. The respondent then told Shri Jam that he is an officer of R. A. W. and he is, therefore, competent to enquire by himself. Shri Jam (P. W. 5) then told the respondent that he should better contact the Collector, Raigarh or Additional Collector, Jashpurnagar and get orders from them for collecting information. The respondent then told Shri Jam that he is an officer of R. A. W. and he is, therefore, competent to enquire by himself. Shri Jam, as claimed, out of courtesy, came out of his house along with the respondent so as to take him to the rest house. Adjoining to the house of Shri Jam was the residence of Shri R. R. Sharma (P. W. 1) who was then the Sub-Divisional Officer, Irrigation. The respondent expressed his desire to meet Shri Sharma also. The respondent had told Shri Jam not to introduce him with Shri Sharma as an officer of R. A. W. and so the respondent was introduced with Shri Sharma as a correspondent of Statesmant. The respondent then expressed his desire to visit the hostel. Inspite of the fact that it was late in the day, Shri Jam brought the respondent along with Shri Sharma (P. W. 1) to the hostel. ( 6 ) AFTER reaching the hostel the respondent threatened Shri Gangamani Tripathi (P. W. 2), who was then the Superintendent of the hostel, as he was an officer of RAW. From there they went to the other hostel. They met another Sub-Divisional Officer Shri D. K. Joshi (P. W. 4 ). To Shri Joshi also the respondent introduced himself as a correspondent of Statesman. The respondent told Shri Joshi to give some information that he had sought but Shri Joshi expressed his inability to give that information at that time. On this respondent told Shri Joshi that he was hiding facts. Shri Joshi, however, refuted it and told the respondent that it would not be possible to go to the spot at that time and it could be possible only the next morning. ( 7 ) FROM there the respondent along with Shri Jam returned to the rest house where arrangements were made for him. Some suspicion had, however, arisen in the mind of Shri Jam about the conduct of the respondent but as he was not sure, he kept quiet at that time. The next morning Shri Jam went to the rest house and expressed his inability to accompany the respondent as he was to go to Jasbpurnagar. Some suspicion had, however, arisen in the mind of Shri Jam about the conduct of the respondent but as he was not sure, he kept quiet at that time. The next morning Shri Jam went to the rest house and expressed his inability to accompany the respondent as he was to go to Jasbpurnagar. Shri Jam then proceeded to Jashpurnagar by a bus. On the way the respondent was seen in a jeep of P. W. D. , which was going towards Jashpurnagar. In the night the respondent wanted information about mission but Shri Jam told him that he would introduce the respondent with Shri Siddique (P. W. 7) who would give him the requited information. ( 8 ) IN Jashpurnagar Shri Jam (P. W. 5) informed the Additional Collector that an officer of RAW has come and he has been expressing his annoyance and displeasure to the Government officials and even states that he knows the Additional Collector. On this the Additional Collector told Shri Jam to bring the respondent. Accordingly Shri Jam went to call the respondent and saw him in the vehicle of one Hanuman Seth. On being told that the Additional Collector wanted to see him, the respondent accompanied Shri Jam to the Additional Collector who sought the identity card from the respondent. The respondent told him that it is lying at the place of Hanuman Seth. The respondent was sent in the vehicle by the Additional Collector to bring the identity card but the respondent did not return back and he even tried to slip away. Since the respondent's conduct had been sufficiently suspicious, he was brought by Shri Jam. The respondent denied to have introduced himself as an officer of RAW and told that the said allegation has been febricated. The Additional Collector, therefore, told Shri Jam to make a report against the respondent. Shri Jam, therefore, wrote out a report which was forwarded to the police station. ( 9 ) SHRI Sharma (P. W. 1), Sub-Divisional Officer, Irrigation, Gangamani Tripathi (P. W. 2), Superintendent of the hostel, Dinesh Kumar Joshi (P. W. 4) and Siddique (P. W. 7) have also given narration of the respective talk that each one of them had with the respondent and about the conduct of the respondent. ( 9 ) SHRI Sharma (P. W. 1), Sub-Divisional Officer, Irrigation, Gangamani Tripathi (P. W. 2), Superintendent of the hostel, Dinesh Kumar Joshi (P. W. 4) and Siddique (P. W. 7) have also given narration of the respective talk that each one of them had with the respondent and about the conduct of the respondent. Besides these witnesses one Lakhpati Karanj (P. W. 3) who happened to be the Superintendent of hostel No. 1, Saryatoli was also examined and he also has stated that the respondent had come to him along with Shri Jam (P. W. 5) and Shri Sharma (P. W. 1) and had made enquiries as to why the ration is being purchased from a shop and not from a society. The respondent even went on to say that he had brought a letter from Delhi and he could get him sent to jail. ( 10 ) THE respondent in his examination denied to have introduced himself as an officer of RAW. He also denied his having had a talk with the witnesses or his having threatened anyone of them. In answer to the last question his version was that he had been writing articles in newspapers Sunday, India Today and other papers of New Delhi. He was trying to collect information with regard to the development of Chhatisgarh. His further version was that he came to know that Shri Jam, Shri Sharma and other officers are corrupt and had even collected lot of information about them. Before he could get all these things published, he was sent to jail. The respondent did not examine any witness in his defence. ( 11 ) THE trial Magistrate had found that the respondent had introduced himself as an officer of RAW and in that capacity he not only did inspection but had rebuked the hostel Superintendents of their lapses. Accordingly the respondent was acquitted of the charge under section 419 but was convicted under section 170 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 12 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge did not find it to be proved beyond doubt that the respondent had introduced himself as an officer of RAW for the reason that in the evidence there were contradictions on that question. He was further of the opinion that his having introduced himself as correspondent of a newspaper was inconsistent with his having introduced himself as an officer of RAW. He was further of the opinion that his having introduced himself as correspondent of a newspaper was inconsistent with his having introduced himself as an officer of RAW. Accordingly the respondent was acquitted of the charge under section 170 Indian Penal Code. ( 13 ) FOR proving an offence under Section 170 Indian Penal Code against an accused, it is necessary for the prosecution that the accused personated himself as a public servant or that be pretended to hold the office of a public servant, that be was not a public servant or that he did not bold such office, that he acted falsely in such personation or that he knew that he did not hold such office, that he when assuming such character did or attempted to do something under colour of such office. ( 14 ) DURING the trial prosecution has examined Sub-Inspector Subhash Sharma (P. W. 9) who in his evidence stated that the S. D. O. Police, Jashpurnagar bad sent him to the offices of India Today and Statesman at Delhi. This, according to him, was done because the respondent was found to be in possession of the identity cards of these two newspapers. He found that the respondent was not a correspondent of either of those two newspapers. The prosecution, however, did not examine any witness from the office of either of those two newspapers. During his cross- examination Subhash Sharma (P. W. 9) even admitted that at Delhi from the office of newspaper Statesman be had come to know that the head office was in Calcutta and the requisite information could be had from Calcutta. He does not state that he had gone to Calcutta also. Besides this witness Subhash Sharma, prosecution did not examine any witness to prove that the respondent was neither a correspondent of any of the newspapers as was claimed by him nor was an officer of RAW. ( 15 ) LEARNED Government Advocate had vehemently argued that the denial of the respondent about his having claimed or pretended as an officer of RAW and the conduct inasmuch as that be tried to slip away should in itself be taken to be sufficient to hold that the respondent was in fact not an officer of RAW and it was a false assertion made by him with the full knowledge that he was not holding any such post in RAW. This contention, in my opinion, cannot be accepted. It cannot be disputed that the burden to prove the necessary requirements of the charge was on the prosecution. The prosecution would have done better had it examined any witness to prove that the respondent did not hold any office in RAW. Mere false denial or the alleged attempt of the respondent to slip away may at best raise a suspicion against the respondent but that by itself would not take the place of proof even with regard to respondents claim about his being a correspondent of the news papers as had been stated by the respondent. The evidence of Subhash Sharma (P. W. 9) would be wholly insufficient to hold that the respondent was not such a correspondent. As a matter of fact the respondent in his examination had alleged that he had been writing articles in the newspapers as have been named by him. ( 16 ) THE net result, therefore, is that even if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were to be accepted so far as the respondents assertion about his being an officer of RAW is concerned, the prosecution case has to fail for the simple reason that the prosecution did not lead any evidence to prove that the respondent was not holding any such office in RAW. Although the Court below did not found in favour of the prosecution so far as the respondents assertion about his being a correspondent of the newspapers is concerned, even on that question the prosecution case has to fail because that would not be covered under section 170 Indian Penal Code, as that would not amount to pretending to hold any particular office as a public servant. Respondent's acquittal under section 419 Indian Penal Code has become final because the State did not choose to prefer any appeal so far as the respondents acquittal under that charge was concerned. ( 17 ) CONSEQUENTLY this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The respondent shall be released from detention if he be so in this case. The respondent be informed through Supdt. Central Jail, Raipur. Appeal dismissed. .