Judgment : The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.305 of 1982 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu. He was found guilty for the offences under Secs.353 and 506, Part II, I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for each of the offence. Against the said conviction and sentence, an appeal had been preferred in C.A.No.981 of 1984 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. The learned Sessions Judge while confirming the conviction under Sec.353, I.P.C., and modifying the sentence into one of fine of Rs.600 in fact set aside the conviction and sentence under Sec.506, Part II, I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the evidence available on record, if scanned properly will point out that the offence under Sec.353, I.P.C., can by no stretch of imagination be made out and consequently, the convictions and sentence under that section have to be set aside. Learned counsel, in support of his argument would take me through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 and also paragraph 7of the judgment of the appellate Court. The learned Sessions Judge, had in fact adverted to in paragraph 7 of the judgment that the evidence available on record as regards the wielding of the knife by the accused and issuing threat to the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 is rather contradictory, making the Court not to rely on their evidence as beyond reproach and suspicion and consequently, he gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him of the charge under Sec.506, Part II, I.P.C. Learned counsel, seizing the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused under Sec.506, Part II, I.P.C. would contend that the criminal force or assault that is necessary for making out an offence under Sec.353, I.P.C., will not be there in such an eventuality. 3. For the proof of the offence under Sec.353, I.P.C., the following ingredients have to be necessarily proved by the prosecution: (i) The person assaulted etc., was a public servant; (ii) The accused assaulted or used criminal force to such public servant; (iii) When the accused assaulted him, he was acting in execution of his duty as such public servant or such assault.... was committed with intent to prevent or deter such public servant from discharging his duty as such or that such assault was committed in consequence of something done or attempted to be done by such public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty. 4. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the second ingredient, namely that the accused assaulted or used criminal force to deter the public servant from discharge of his duties is not at all proved by cogent and convincing evidence in this case. As already referred to, the learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 on aspect and found to be contradictory and therefore, he has not placed any reliance on their evidence to prove the offence under Sec.506, Part II, I.P.C. in the sense of the accused wielding a knife in his hand at the relevant time and issuing threat to the public servants P.Ws.1 and 2. When the wielding of the knife and issuing threat to the witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 for the proof of the offence under Sec.506, Part II, I.P.C. is not believed at all by the appellate Court, it goes without saying that it is not possible to faster or mulct criminal liability upon the accused for the offence under Sec.353, I.P.C., when especially the wielding of the knife by the accused and thereby using criminal force, a necessary ingredient for the offence under Sec.353, I.P.C., is proof practically absent. In this view of the matter the conviction and sentence of the accused/revision petitioner for the offence under Sec.353, I.P.C., cannot at all be sustained. 5. In the result, the revision is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed in the petitioner. The fine amount, if any, paid is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.