Judgment :- Courts below concurrently found petitioner guilty of the offence under section 332, IPC, on a charge that at or about 9 p.m. on 22-7-85 he voluntarily caused hurt to deter a public servant (PW 1) from discharging his duty. 2. PW 1 a police constable had gone to a village, in the hill district of Wynad to serve summons. He has returning to his headquarters by about 7 p.m., when he saw petitioner behaving in an unruly manner under the influence of alcohol in a public place. PW 1 advised petitioner to go home without creating difficulties. Petitioner persisted in his behaviour, and then PW 1 took him into custody and boarded a bus with him. While in the bus, petitioner hit PW 1 on his nose, causing bleeding injuries. PW 1 fell down and then, petitioner kicked him. PW 1 was then in uniform. That is the evidence of PW 1, and PW 5 conductor of the bus. PW 2 a hostile witness also says that PW 1 was in uniform, and that he saw PW 1 with bleeding injuries. PW 8 doctor examined PW 1 and issued Ext. P2 wound certificate, noticing injuries corresponding to those stated by PWs. 1 and 5. Medical evidence thus corroborates the evidence of PWs. 1 and 5. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that PW 1 was not discharging official duties and that petitioner would not have committed the offence, if he had known that PW 1 was a member of a uniformed force. Evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 5 is to the effect that PW 1 in uniform. He was discharging official duties in preventing petitioner from misbehaving in a public place, and in taking him into custody. Contention is without merit. It was further submitted that petitioner was not allowed an opportunity to cross-examine PW 1 effectively. PW 1 was examined on 29-9-86. After prosecution evidence was closed, on 29-7-87, a petition was made to recall PW 1. Though belated, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition and granted three more opportunities. These were not availed of, by petitioner. The contention must therefore fail. 4. Counsel then prayed for reduction of sentence. A plea for a lenient sentence cannot be assented to. Defiance to authority cannot be countenanced, except at peril, to values fundamental to the existence of a Government established by law. These were not availed of, by petitioner. The contention must therefore fail. 4. Counsel then prayed for reduction of sentence. A plea for a lenient sentence cannot be assented to. Defiance to authority cannot be countenanced, except at peril, to values fundamental to the existence of a Government established by law. If transgression on authority of law is permitted, in the long run it will weaken the Government by laws, replacing it with Governance by might. Might or muscle cannot subdue the authority of law. One doubts whether the authority and majesty of law are not being challenged, too often and with impunity. Misplaced liberalism can wreck foundations which sustain orderly societies and pillars of law on which Governments must rest. Soft sentencing norms have no relevance in these areas. The sentence of two years' imprisonment which the Courts below considered appropriate, does not warrant interference. Conviction and sentence are confirmed and revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.