ORDER : This revision has been directed by the accused as against the concurrent findings recorded by two courts below in C.C. No. 118 of 2007. The petitioners were prosecuted for offences under sections 353, 294(b) and 506(i) r/w. 34 IPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry. They were convicted and sentenced as under : A1- R. Ramesh 1. Under section 353 IPC r/w. 34 IPC 2 years S.I and fine Rs.1000/- i/d 1 month S.I. 2. Under section 294(b) IPC r/w. 34 3 months S.I and fine Rs.250/- i/d 1 week S.I. 3. Under Section 506(i) IPC r/w. 34 IPC 2 years S.I. and fine Rs.1000/- i/d 1 month S.I. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. A3 – Mathi @ Madhivanan @ Attukan Madhivanan 1. Under section 353 IPC r/w. 34 IPC 2 years S.I and fine Rs.1000/- i/d 1 month S.I. 2. Under section 294(b) IPC r/w. 34 3 months S.I and fine Rs.250/- i/d 1 week S.I. 3. Under Section 506(i) IPC r/w. 34 IPC 2 years S.I. and fine Rs.1000/- i/d 1 month S.I. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved, the petitioners, namely A1 and A3 have appealed to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry. The Appellate Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentences awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry. 3. The accused canvases legality and propriety of the conviction and the consequent sentence awarded by both the Courts. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the evidence of P.W.1 is such that none of the offence complained of, namely offences under sections 294(b), 506(i) and 353 is not at all made out. In such circumstances, the conviction recorded suffers from legality. Consequently, the sentence imposed shall go away. 5. However, the learned Government Advocate, Union Territory of Puducherry would contend that the prosecution has established the offences by the evidence of P.W.1. The two Courts recorded concurrent findings. There is nothing here to interfere. 6. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry and of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge and also perused the materials on record in the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. 7. There is nothing here to interfere. 6. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry and of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge and also perused the materials on record in the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. 7. Now, the question is whether the conviction recorded by the Courts below for offences under sections 294(b), 506(i) and 353 IPC suffers from any legality. Whether it calls for our interference in this revision. 8. This Court will be very slow in upsetting the concurrent verdicts rendered by two Courts. However, this is not an inelastic proposition of law, when they suffer from legality, it calls for interference by this Court. Then it is the duty of this Court to interfere under section 397 Cr.P.C. and to restore justice. 9. As per the prosecution version, on 25.6.2007, at about 11.20 a.m., P.W.1, S.I. of Police and P.W.2 to 7 police personnel were on vehicle check up at Sonapalayam Junction, Puducherry. At about that time, when the accused came in two vehicles, where the police party asked vehicle documents, they were alleged to have scolded P.W.1 and other police personnel in filthy language, obstructed their public duty and also criminally intimidated them. P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 complaint, P.W.8 registered this case and did first investigation and P.W.9 completed the investigation and filed the Final Report. 10. P.W.1 had stated that the accused have scolded him : “XX XX XX” In the evidence of other police personnel, there is material contradiction as to the alleged obscene words stated to have been uttered by the accused. 11. The offence under section 294(b) IPC requires doing of obscene act or signs, making of utterances, singing of songs, ballads which is of obscene in nature in a public place or near a public place. An offence under section 353 IPC requires that the victim at the time of occurrence must be in discharge of public duty and the accused would have assaulted him and used criminal force and it should be with an intention to deter discharge of their public duties. For an offence under section 506(i) IPC there should have been immediate threat. It should be in the nature of putting the victim under fear. It should be immediate in nature. For an offence under section 506(i) IPC there should have been immediate threat. It should be in the nature of putting the victim under fear. It should be immediate in nature. It should create fear in the mind of the victim. These are the essential requirements for offences under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(i) IPC. 12. Literal application of criminal law is not the test. Lord Macaulay, the English man wrote Indian Penal Code for Indians. It should be interpreted considering the circumstances and considering the place of occurrence. Uttering of words, will have different tones, will have different context and meaning from place to place within the City, within the State. Further, these offences also requires mens rea (guilty mind). In the Indian Penal Code, Mens rea is expressed in different forms. 13. When we look at the evidence, they will not amount to obscene words. The revision petitioners/accused are ordinary civilians and the victims are S.I. of Police and Head Constables and in this back ground of the matter, the other offence under section 506(i) IPC is not made out. Further, the words are vague in nature and in the facts and circumstances, they will not create immediate fear in the mind of the police party. Admittedly, P.W.1 has not suffered any injury. P.W.1 was not assaulted. There was no use of criminal force. They continued their public duty. In such circumstances, offence under section 353 IPC is also not made out. 14. Now, in this situation, though concurrent findings have been recorded by two Courts, it calls for our interference because of the legality of the conviction recorded is in issue, consequently, the sentence imposed on them must also go away. 15. In the result, this revision is allowed. Conviction and sentenced awarded in C.C. No. 118 of 2007 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry which has been confirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry in C.A. No. 35 of 2015 as against the revision petitioners are set aside. Fine amount shall be refunded to them. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.