JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate on the admission of the present appeal which is reportedly barred by a period of 16 days in filing it. We condone the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. 2. It is a long narration contained in the F.I.R. of the case, the gist of which could be put a few lines that the informant had some strained bad relationship with his wife and on the pretext of resolving the dispute he was taken away, allegedly, by the accused persons to a particular place under supposition that his wife was waiting for him. The lady was not present there. The appellant was made to sit there and was offered some Courtesy by way of a few potato tikiyas and some pepsi cold drink. The appellant did not take the whole of a tikiya and chewed only half of it and refused to take any drop of pepsi under suspicion that there might be a conspiracy of the accused to finally eliminate him. 3. He came back home and on reaching there he had some feeling of a disturb and upset stomach. He rushed to the doctor and when the doctor wanted to have his stomach washed, the appellant refused. On the above facts, the case was instituted and it went to the trial. 4. The evidence is supporting the story of the informant going with accused to a particular place where he was supposed to find his wife waiting for him and the accused offering him a few potato tikiyas, but the appellant chewed only half of a tikiya. 5. We refer to a huge line of the decisions as to how a case of poisoning has to be established during a trial and we, in that connection, simply want to refer to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 . In that judgement, the Supreme Court reviewed all the earlier cases on Sections 328 and 302 I.P.C. and then laid down that in order to succeeding, the prosecution was required to firstly, establish that the poison or the stupefying substance, which is allegedly administered by any means to the victim, has to be established lying very much in the possession of the accused. The second ingredient which was required to be established was that the accused had himself administered the drug or substance or had caused the same to be taken by the victim and thirdly, that such administration of the poison, drug,etc. was the cause of any hurt. The fourth ingredient, which we find from the reading of the provision is that the administration of the poison or any such substance as noted by Section 328 I.P.C. must be done or caused to be taken by the victim of the offence with an intent that hurt was caused. We simply want to refer to Sections 319 and 320 of the IPC which sections define ‘hurt’ and ‘grievous hurt’ and we want to note that if no such hurt or grievous hurt, as are spoken of by the two provisions, are found to be caused due to such act of administering or making the victim to swallow the poison, etc. is caused no offence under Section 328 I.P.C. and for that reason under any provision like that under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. would be made out. 6. Coming to the facts of the case, merely going to a place accompanying an accused under certain promise could not be said to constitute any offence. Waiting for ones wife certainly is not an offence. Being offered some Courtesy also may not be an offence unless the intent behind it could be malicious or criminal. That criminal intent may also not be an offence because the four steps in committing an offence could be eliminating that act as an offence. Any offence could be constituted only when the facts of a case fall within the four walls of definition of such an offence and never otherwise. The appellant might have been offered a potato tikiya and he may also have eaten up half of it, but in absence of any evidence indicating that the content of the tikiya was having some poisonous or injurious substance as noted by Section 328 Cr.P.C., there could not be an offence either under Section 327 or 328 I.P.C. Neither the tikiyas were seized and put to test for isolating any such drug or substance or poison as spoken of by Section 328 I.P.C. nor the contents of the stomach of the appellant was analysed to lead evidence in Court that indeed that particular ingredient of the offence was established. 7. In our opinion-after having gone through the judgement-it was a case which was a complete hoax besides being malicious and the whole trial was a wastage of public time and money as appears again done in the present proceedings of the appeal taken out to this Court. We, as such, find no merit in the appeal as we do not find the learned trial judge falling in error or suffering from any perverse element in appreciation of evidence and thus, the judgement could not be said to be legitimately wrong and perverse. The appeal is dismissed but under the circumstances with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) imposed upon the appellant to be realised from him as per provisions of the Cr.P.C. for realisation of fine.