P. A. KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the petitioner sharadamma against the order dated february 14, 1985, passed by the Judicial magistrate, First Class, Kollegal, in C. C. No. 550/1980 discharging the accused under Section 239 Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) THE petitioner had lodged a complaint on 3-10-79 alleging that the accused persons along with some other people arrived at her house armed with a gun, chappals and broom sticks and asked her where husband was. The complainant told the accused persons that her husband had gone out. A-1 fired the gun at coconut trees and the third round of fire hit the coconuts in the tree by the said of her house and some coconuts fell down. When the coconuts fell down, A-1 is said to have criminally intimated her alleging that he would have dealt her husband in the same fashion as he has dealt with the coconuts had he been present on the spot at that time. So saying he went away. Thereafter she lodged a private complaint and it was referred by the court to the police under Section 156 (3) cr. P. C. The police after carrying out necessary investigation into the case, lodged a charge sheet against the present respondents-1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 143 and 506 I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE Magistrate after hearing the prosecution and the defence held that such a threat did not come within the ambit or criminal intimidation as defined by Section 503 I. P. C and so he discharged the accused persons. Hence the present revision. ( 4 ) A reading of the complaint and the various statement would go to show as :- ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate took the view that the said threat was not a threat to cause injury in future and it was only an utterance that if he were there at that time he would have been shot dead. According to him, this did not amount to criminal intimidation within the meaning of Section 503 I. P. C. ( 6 ) THE learned author Shri Ratanlal and Dhirajlal in his Law of Crimes, 22nd edition, 1982 (Reprint) on page 1361 has stated as:-"whether as a matter of fact one was actually frightened or not, cannot affect the question of the liability of the speaker under this Section. Nor is it necessary for the speaker to know that any member or group of persons who are intended to be frightened by the speech was present among the audience. "at the bottom of the said page, the authors have stated as :-"in the case of injury to a third person in whom the person threatened is interested, the injury should be to his person or reputation. "thus it becomes clear that the person threatened need not be present at the time of uttering the words amounting to criminal intimidation. If the words amounting to criminal intimidation are uttered in the presence of a person who, in tur. i, is interested in the person criminally intimidated, still it would amount to an offence under Section 503 I. P. C. ( 7 ) SECTION 502 I. P. C. reads as :-"whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person in interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do so, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. "therefore the only requirement of constituting the offence under Section 503 I. P. C. is that the words constituting criminal intimidation may be uttered even in the presence of a person who is interested in the person criminally intimated though that person might not be present. In this case the petitioner's husband may not be present. But the point that is to be decided is whether the words above referred to are sufficient to cause alarm to the petitioner who is the wife of the person criminally intimidated. When A-1 fired the gun at the coconuts and as a result thereof two coconuts fell down, his utterances are that he would have shot her husband also in the same way in which he had done the coconuts, had he been present. Therefore such utterances at this stage, in my opinion, amount to causing criminal intimidation and sufficient to cause alarm even to the petitioner's husband and also the petitioner. Therefore such utterances at this stage, in my opinion, amount to causing criminal intimidation and sufficient to cause alarm even to the petitioner's husband and also the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE next argument advanced by the learned Counsel Shri Kadidal Manjaappa is that those words did not amount to a threat to cause injuries in future The very utterances above referred to would indicate that if he had been present, he would have dealt him just as he shot the coconut trees. Therefore this conduct of a-1 would go to show that he caused alarm indicating that if he was present he would have shot him. Therefore it is not a threat said to have been caused in the past. But it amounts to a threat which would attract at present the requirement of Section 533 I. P. C. Therefore the view taken by the Magistrate cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) THEREFORE the order passed by the magistrate is set aside. The revision is allowed. The Magistrate is directed to peruse all the papers referred to in Section 209 Cr. P. C. and consider the matter afresh for the purpose of framing a charge. --- *** --- .