JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. ASSAILING the judgment dated 11.11.2004, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Shimla, in Criminal Case No. 99/2 of 2001, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Mahinder Lal and another, as partly affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, vide judgment dated 4.4.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1-S/10 of 2005, tilted as Mohinder Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh, accused- petitioner Mohinder Lal has filed the present Revision Petition under the provisions of Sections 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. ON the basis of statement of complainant Shri Vinod Sharma (PW-1), under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, FIR No.16/2001 dated 24.1.2001 (Ex. PW-8/A), under Sections 353, 332, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, against the present petitioner Mohinder Lal and his co-accused Janki Nath. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.1.2001, accused persons, during the course of a meeting of the Panchayat, threatened, intimidated and gave beatings to complainant Shri Vinod Sharma (PW-1). Police investigated the matter and on completion of the same, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. PETITIONER and his co-accused Janki Nath were charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 353 & 506, both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Statement of the accused-petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took up a defence that the complainant had contested elections against him. Hence, suggestion is of false implication. After trial, accused Janki Dass was convicted for having committed offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and released by giving benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, petitioner Mohinder Lal was convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and pay fine of Rs.500/- each in relation to both the offences and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of for a period of one month. 5. 5. PETITIONER Mohinder Lal filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions Judge. The said appeal was partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside, however, the conviction and sentence in relation to offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld. 6. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. Shri Vinod Sharma (PW-1), in no uncertain terms, has deposed that in a public meeting and at a public place, the petitioner caught him by the neck and gave him kick blows. Testimony of Shri Tula Ram (PW-2) and Shri Krishan Chand (PW-3) corroborates such version. Hence, all the relevant prosecution witnesses, in one voice, have deposed the incident, which leaves no doubt with regard to the occurrence of the incident and criminality of the petitioner, in relation to the offence for which he has been convicted. From the MLC (Ex. PW-7/A), it is evidently clear that injuries were sustained by the complainant. 7. AS such, from the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that the judgment of the trial Court as modified by the first Appellate Court is perverse. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed, as to my mind no ground for interference is made out. Entire material has been considered and correctly appreciated. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.