Judgment : The Accused No.1 in C.C.No.288 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mettur who was found guilty of charges and convicted for offences under Sections 506(i), 294(b) and 353 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo 6 months rigourous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of 2 months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 506(i) I.P.C., to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of 2 months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C, after unsuccessfully prosecuting an appeal before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem in Crl.A.No.147 of 2006 has come for-ward with the present Criminal Revision Case challenging the correctness and legality of the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court. 2. A Charge sheet was laid after investigation in a case registered on the file of Mettur Police Station as Crime No.494 of 2009 based on the complaint of P.W.1 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 353 and 506 (ii) by the petitioner herein, who figured as A1 and two other persons, namely Saradha and Jothi, who figured as A2 and A3 respectively. The case of prosecution is that P.W.1, who was the Taluk Supply Officer went to the fair price shop at Poraiyur pursuant to an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur to conduct a stock verification of the goods meant for supply under the Public Distribution System; that while she was doing such stock verification at about 1.45 p.m. on 6.11.2004, the petitioner and the other o accused prevented her from discharging her duty as a Public Officer and abused her with unparliamentary words besides causing a threat that she would not leave the place alive in case she ventured to inform the public of the malpractices found by P.W.1. 3. The trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 353 and 596(ii) against the petitioner herein/A1 and against the other two accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 506(ii) alone. 3. The trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 353 and 596(ii) against the petitioner herein/A1 and against the other two accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 506(ii) alone. As many as 5 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 5 and six documents were marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-6 on the side of the prosecution in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused persons. No material object was produced. After examining the accused under Section 313(1)(b) regarding the incriminating materials found in the materials adduced on the side of prosecution, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mettur considered the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on either side and upon such consideration, came to the conclusion that except the charge under Section 341 I.P.C, all the other charges were proved against the petitioner/A1 and convicted him for the said offence and imposed punishment as indicated supra. So far as the other two accused are concerned, Saradha (A2) was convicted for an offence under Section 353 alone, whereas Jothi (A3) was acquitted of all the offences with which she stood charged. 4. As against the conviction and sentence, the petitioner alone preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.147 of 2006 which came to be disposed of by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem by judgment dated 6.9.2007 confirming the conviction of the petitioner for all the three offences and the sentence imposed thereon by the trial Court. The same is impugned in this Criminal Revision Case on various grounds set out in the petition. 5. This Court heard the arguments advanced by Mr.B. Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Muniapparaj, learned Government advocate (Crl.Side) representing the Respondent Police. The materials available on record were also perused. 6. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence, especially that of P.W.1, the de facto complainant and that the Courts below would have come to a conclusion that none of the charges had been proved beyond any reasonable doubt had they dealt with the evidence in a proper manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there was no reliable evidence to convict the petitioner, either for an offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C. or an offence punishable under Section 506(i) I.P.C; that the Courts below, while disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the said offences as against the 3rd accused should have applied the same yardstick to the petitioner also and that hence the conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 506(i) and 353 I.P.C should be set aside. 7. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second accused who was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C, as against whom there is some evidence, has not chosen to file an appeal and that the evidence to limplicate the petitioner for the said offence was nothing but an addition made as an afterthought, which is obvious from the interpolation found in the complaint and that the said aspect was not properly appreciated by the Courts below. So far as the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 294(b) is concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that alleged abusive words used by the petitioner against P.W.1 would not amount to an offence punishable under Section 294(b). The learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to attack the same on any other stronger ground. 8. Per contra, the learned Government advocate (Crl.side) would contend that the concurrent findings of the Courts below should not be interfered with unless strong ground for such interference is made out in the criminal revision case and that in normal circumstances, the Court should not try to re-appreciate the evidence while dealing with the criminal revision case. It is the further contention of the learned Government advocate (Crl.Side) that the Courts below were right in holding the petitioner guilty of offences punishable under Sections 506(i), 294(b) and 353 I.P.C and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional power. 9. This Court paid its anxious considerations to the above said submissions made on either side. 10. 9. This Court paid its anxious considerations to the above said submissions made on either side. 10. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner who figured as A1 before the trial Court, besides abusing P.W.1, a public servant, while she was discharging her duty as such public servant, prevented her from discharging her duties by committing assault and using criminal force against her and also caused criminal intimidation to deter her from proceeding with stock verification in the fair price shop in which the petitioner/A1 was the salesman. 11. The only allegation made against the petitioner by P.W.1 in her evidence to attract under Section 294(b) is that when P.W.1 pointed out the stock-deficit and wanted petitioner/A1 to produce stock register, he refused to do so and insulted her by calling singularly TAMIL. Nowhere in the evidence of P.W.1, this Court could find the implication of the petitioner/A1 for doing any obscene act like singing any obscene song. Mere uttering of unparlimentary words shall not amount to an offence under Section 294 I.P.C. unless the words used are also obscene. Calling a person singularly will not amount to committing an obscene act. Therefore, this Court is convinced that the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the alleged unparlimentary words used by the petitioner against P.W.1 assuming to be true will never amount to an offence punishable under Section 294(b) I.P.C. The other eye witness examined on the side of the prosecution is P.W.3. His evidence in this regard also is similar to that of P.W.1. It does not indicate the use of any obscene or vulgar words. Other witnesses examined on the side of prosecution are not eye witnesses. This Court finds that the Courts below have not considered the implication of the above said evidence of the witnesses in proper prospective. Without evaluating that part of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, this Court could say, without any hesitation, that the derivation made by the Courts below that the said part of the evidence attract Section 294(b) I.P.C. is perverse and hence the same has got to be set at right by setting aside the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C. 12. So far as the charge under Section 506(i) I.P.C. is concerned, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the acceptance of testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 3 should have resulted in conviction of 506(ii) rather than 506(i) and the fact that the Courts below recorded a conviction for an offence punishable under Section 506(i) I.P.C alone. When the threat allegedly made by the petitioner is to cause death of P.W.1 shows lack of proper application of mind to the relevant penal provisions. Apart from the said erroneous application of mind as to the scope of the two parts of Section 506 I.P.C, there are also materials which would go to show that certain improvements were made in the prosecution case to attract Section 506(ii) I.P.C against the petitioner/A1. First of all, there is an interpolation in Exhibit P-1 complaint introducing the following words “TAMLI”. Even that interpolation implicates the junior maternal aunt of the petitioner and another woman, perhaps referring to A2 and A3. There is nothing in the complaint to the effect that the petitioner was one of the persons who caused such a threat to kill P.W.1. If the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is considered in the light of the particulars found in Exhibit P-1 complaint, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there had been embellishment and Improvement made by P.Ws.1 and 3 at the time of deposing before the Court to implicate the petitioner also for the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. has got to be accepted. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 506(i) I.P.C. deserves to be set aside. 13. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner (A1) along with the other accused persons committed assault or used criminal force to prevent P.W.1, a public servant, from discharging her duty as a public officer. Clear evidence has been adduced through P.Ws.1 and 3 to the effect that the petitioner refused to hand over the stock register and thereby obstructed P.W.1, a public servant from discharging her duty as such public servant. Unless assault or use of force is proved, the same shall not come under Section 353 I.P.C, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted. Unless assault or use of force is proved, the same shall not come under Section 353 I.P.C, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted. Though there is no direct evidence that there was any assault on the part of the petitioner, there are evidence to the effect that the petitioner’s gesture that force would be used in case P.W.1 proceeded with the stock verification despite the objection made by the accused persons, constituted assault. The gesture followed by snatching the register from P.W.1 is capable of causing an apprehension in the mind of P.W.1 that the petitioner was about to use criminal force against P.W.1 to prevent her from discharging her duties. Use of actual force is not necessary. If force is used it will amount to use of criminal force. Any gesture or preparation to use such force shall amount to assault. Assault or use of criminal force to prevent a public servant from discharging his/her duties as public servant shall be covered by the definition of the offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C. 14. In this case, this Court is convinced that there are sufficient materials to warrant a conviction of the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C. There is no defect or infirmity, much less any perversity in the finding of the Courts below warranting interference with the conviction of the trial Court which was confirmed by appellate Court of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C. Regarding the punishment also, the Court below have shown leniency by imposing fine alone with default sentence. There is no scope, whatsoever, to interfere with the same and the same deserves to be confirmed. 15. For all the reasons stated above, this criminal revision case is partly allowed and the conviction of the petitioner/A1 for the offences punishable under Section 294(b) and 506 (i) and the sentence imposed therefor are set aside. The conviction for offences punishable under Section 353 I.P.C and the sentence imposed shall stand confirmed. Revision partly allowed.