JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - This revision is preferred against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Boudh-Khondmals, Phulbani, in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1985 confirming the order of the trial Court under Sections 294, 323 and 353, IPC passed against the accused Petitioner and sentencing him thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- tinder each of the counts, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for five days. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows: On 10-4-1984 at about 7 a.m. as the informant, who was a female nurse working in the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Baliguda, was discharging her duties and attending to a delivery case of the labour room, the accused had come to the hospital with his wife and daughter, who were injured in a motor accident and insisted on her to call the doctor immediately and as she expressed her inability to do so, the accused had abused her in filthy language and slapped her on her cheek, as a result of which she sustained a swelling injury on her cheek and her 'ear-flower' (ear ornament) was broken. The informant nurse immediately reported about the occurrence at the Baliguda Police Station and on the basis of her report, the police proceeded with the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet against the accused. 3. This Court, sitting in revision, cannot re-appraise the evidence in the case which was considered by both the Courts below. On a perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, I find it was only after carefully considering the evidence on record, they have come to the concurrent finding that the accused was guilty of the offences under Sections 323 and 294, IPC and I find no reason to differ with their finding. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even if the entire prosecution evidence is accepted as true, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it does not spell out an offence u/s 353, IPC. There appears to be much substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of assaulting or using criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty. There appears to be much substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of assaulting or using criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty. The ingredients of Section 353, IPC are: (1) the person assaulted was a public servant, (2) that he was acting in exercise of his duties as such public servant, (3) that the assault or criminal force used against such public servant was (i) intended to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty as a public servant, or (ii) was used as a consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by the said public servant in lawful exercise of his duties as such public servant. From the evidence in the present case it is very clear that the accused in his over anxiety to compel the nurse to call the doctor for immediately attending on his wife and daughter misbehaved with the female nurse in the manner he did. So In the facts of the case it can never be said that when the accused assaulted the female nurse, he intended to prevent or deter the female nurse from discharging her duties as a public servant and on the other hand, he was more anxious to see that the nurse should discharge her duties more promptly by immediately calling the doctor for attending on his injured wife and daughter. Hence it is seen that the prosecution has failed to prove all the ingredients of the offence u/s 353, IPC and so no offence is made out against the accused u/s 353, IPC and therefore, he is entitled to an acquittal thereunder. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the peculiar facts of the present case, the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 360, Code of Criminal Procedure. In both the Courts below the counsel for the Petitioner did not pray for the benefit u/s 360, Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the peculiar facts of the present case, the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 360, Code of Criminal Procedure. In both the Courts below the counsel for the Petitioner did not pray for the benefit u/s 360, Code of Criminal Procedure. But then, there is no legal bar for invoking the provision u/s 360, Code of Criminal Procedure for the first time in this Court and the revisional Court can also pass an order u/s 360, Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the Petitioner, provided the facts of the case justify such a course and the conditions u/s 360, Code of Criminal Procedure are fulfilled. In the present case, the Petitioner at the relevant time was serving as a Public Relation Officer and so he ought to have exercised greater restraint while dealing with a female nurse of the hospital, who was engaged in a labour case at the relevant time. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit u/s 360, Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. In the result, I find the accused-Petitioner not guilty of the offence u/s 353, IPC and the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the Courts below thereunder is hereby set aside. However, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioner under Sections 294 and 323, IPC would stand. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Final Result : Allowed