JUDGMENT : 1. The revision petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.386/1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thodupuzha. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha in Crime No.26/1994 prosecuted the revision petitioner and two others (accused 2 and 3) alleging offence under Sections 448 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate after a full fledged trial found the revision petitioner guilty for offence under Sections 448 and 353 IPC. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 353 IPC, and a fine of Rs.1,000/-under Section 448 IPC with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one and a half months. Accused 2 and 3 were found not guilty and acquitted. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.61/1998 before the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. By judgment dated 7.1.2002 the learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition is preferred. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 17.1.1984, PW1, who is the Inspector of Cooperative Societies, was functioning as a Polling Officer and had been conducting the election to the Ezhalloor Milk Producers Society. The father of the revision petitioner had submitted a nomination to contest as a candidate in the election. But the nomination was rejected. Being got ill motivated, the revision petitioner along with other accused and certain other persons in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal trespass to the polling booth at 10.45 a.m. while the election process was in progress, and the revision petitioner snatched away the ballot box wherein 13 ballots were inserted after casting vote. The ballot box was thrown out to the public road in front of the booth and ran out. From there the revision petitioner and others took away the ballot box and fled from the scene in an auto rickshaw despite the attempt of PW1 and the police personnel on duty to prevent it and the election had to be postponed and thereby committed criminal trespass to the polling booth and deterred PW1 from discharging his official duty as the Polling Officer. 3. 3. On the basis of Ext.P1 First Information Statement given by PW1, the case was registered for which Ext.P3 First Information Report was prepared. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the trial court. The revision petitioner and the other accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore they were sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, Pws 1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the revision petitioner and others were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner took up a defence that the Secretary of the Society, who was examined as PW2, had got previous enmity and therefore he was falsely implicated. No defence evidence was adduced. On appraisal of the evidence, the trial court arrived at a conclusion of guilty, conviction and sentence as mentioned above. 4. I have heard Sri. Bindhu. R, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perused the judgments of the courts below. 5. In support of the case of the prosecution regarding snatching away the ballot box, there is the evidence of Pws 1, 2, 4 to 6 and 9. Pw2, as mentioned earlier is the Secretary of the Society. PW4 was a contesting candidate. Pws 5, 6 and 9 were police personnel on Bandavastha duty for the election. All the above witnesses would harmoniously depose that the appellant and others trespassed to the election booth and snatched away the ballot box. The ballot box was first thrown out to the public road in front of the booth and from there it was taken away in an auto rickshaw. The evidence of PW1 would show that at the time when the ballot box was snatched away, 13 voters had cast their votes and the box was containing the cast ballots. The courts below, on appreciation of the evidence, had concurrently believed the evidence of Pws 1,2,4 to 6 and 9 and arrived at a conclusion that the revision petitioner had snatched away the ballot box and therefore, PW1 had to stop the election because of the snatching away of the ballot box. Thus PW1 was deterred from discharging official duties. 6. Thus PW1 was deterred from discharging official duties. 6. The only argument that was advanced before me by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the ballot box was kept over the table and the revision petitioner, first threw the box to the public road abutting the booth and then taken away. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it would not amount to any criminal force or assault against PW1 as defined under Sections 350 and 351 IPC and therefore no offence under Section 353 IPC was disclosed and at the most only an offence under Section 186 IPC is disclosed. In support of his argument, the learned counsel would give reliance to the decision of this Court in Devaki Amma v. State of Kerala (1981 KHC 313 = 1981 KLN 452). It was a case where the Taluk Surveyor and the Revenue Inspector went to a private property for measuring the same. The accused therein locked the gate. Therefore, the Taluk Surveyor and the Revenue Inspector could not enter the compound and discharge their official duties. This Court held that there was no criminal force or assault to constitute an offence under Section 353 IPC and at the most, in the given set of allegations, offence under Section 186 IPC alone was disclosed. Further having found that prosecution for offence under Section 186 IPC is not maintainable without a written complaint by a public servant, this Court interfered with the prosecution under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case on hand can no way be compared with the reported case. 7. Having carefully gone through the nature of the allegations, I find that this is a case in which the revision petitioner had snatched the ballot box with ballots from the polling booth by criminal force and thereby PW1 could not discharge the official duties as the returning officer. There is no quarrel for the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that unless the force was used, the ballot box could not be thrown out to the road from the booth so as to take it away from there in an auto rickshaw. The persuasive argument that was made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that there was no force used by the revision petitioner as against Pw1 in snatching away the ballot box. The persuasive argument that was made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that there was no force used by the revision petitioner as against Pw1 in snatching away the ballot box. For a correct appreciation of the case, I consider that a reading of Sections 349 and 350 IPC which define force and criminal force along with illustration A to Section 350 IPC, which reads as follows, would be relevant: "349. Force.- A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling: Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described. First.- By his own bodily power. Secondly.- By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person. Thirdly.- By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move. 350. Criminal force.- whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other. "Illustrations "(a) Z is sitting in a moored boat on a river. A unfastens the moorings, and thus intentionally causes the boat to drift down the stream. Here A intentionally causes motion to Z, and he does this by disposing substances in such a manner that the motion is produced without any other act on any person's part. "Illustrations "(a) Z is sitting in a moored boat on a river. A unfastens the moorings, and thus intentionally causes the boat to drift down the stream. Here A intentionally causes motion to Z, and he does this by disposing substances in such a manner that the motion is produced without any other act on any person's part. A has therefore intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done so without Z's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending or knowing it to be likely that this use of force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, A has used criminal force to Z" The definitions of the force and criminal force being the above, having reference to illustrations (a) to Section 350, I am unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though there is no evidence to come to a conclusion that Pw1 was holding the ballot box at the time when it was snatched away, had PW1 got an idea that petitioner would snatch away the box, the revision petitioner could not take it out of the polling booth without exerting force. The mere fact that ballot box was on the table without Pw1 holding, would not, in the given set of facts dilute the nature of the force exercised by the revision petitioner in snatching away the ballot box. The action of the revision petitioner snatching away the ballot box would amount to criminal force. Therefore, I am to concur with the courts below to come to a conclusion that there was exercise of criminal force against Pw1. Because of the snatching away of the ballot box, PW1 was deterred from discharging the duty as Polling officer. Therefore, action of the petitioner would constitute offence u/s 353 IPC. The evidence on record would show that the revision petitioner was motivated for having his father's nomination paper rejected. So the intention of the revision petitioner to deter Pw1 from discharging the duty as Polling Officer is also evident. Though the polling booth is a public place where the voters had entry and even if the petitioner was a voter, his entry therein the booth with intent to snatch away the ballot box would amount to criminal trespass punishable under Section 448 IPC. Though the polling booth is a public place where the voters had entry and even if the petitioner was a voter, his entry therein the booth with intent to snatch away the ballot box would amount to criminal trespass punishable under Section 448 IPC. There is no error, illegality or impropriety committed by the courts below in appreciating the evidence. Therefore I find that conviction under challenge is not liable to be interfered in exercise of the revisional powers vested on this Court. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner was aged 23 years on the date of the occurrence and that the punishment prescribed for offence under Section 353 IPC is only imprisonment for six months which may extent to two years or fine or both and therefore the courts below should have confined the sentence to fine. Having due regard to the nature of the offences, I am unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner committed the offence as against an election process of a Co-operative Society. Therefore he is not entitled to leniency. The sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed in appeal is not very harsh or disproportionate and therefore the sentence also does not require interference in exercise of revisional powers. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance.