JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) : Heard Mr. HK Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. RC Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 2. By this revision petition filed under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C, the judgment and order dated 19.09.2014 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur has been called in question. By the said judgment dated 19.09.2014, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.02.2014 delivered in case No. PRC 206 of 2013 [corresponding to case No. GR 261 of 2013] has been affirmed. The trial Court while passing the said judgment and order dated 17.02.2014 convicted the petitioners under Section 353 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default imprisonment. 3. The crux of the prosecution case is that on 28.09.2013 at about 11.35 hours, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kamalpur, Dhalai District (PW-1), namely, Raval Hemendra Kumar lodged a written ejahar in the Kachucherra police station alleging that on that very day at about 1.00 p.m while the marriage registration camp was on progress with in the Kachucherra Community Hall, one of the petitioners, namely, Biplab Das prevented him and other officials while they were discharging the government duties. The said ejahar was registered as Kachucherra PS case No. 21 of 2013 under Section 353/34 of the IPC and it was investigated by Sri Asit kumar Das (PW-8). 4. For purpose of appreciation, the substantive part of the FIR (Exhibit-1) may be reproduced hereunder: “I am to inform you that on 28/9/13 at about 1 PM at Kachuchara Community Hall during the processing of Marriage Camp one Sri Biplab Das S/O Sri Birendra Das of South Kachuchara and Sri Tinku Das S/O Prahllad Das of North Kachuchara both Kachuchara PS prevented me and other officials in discharging government duty. This is for your information and necessary action”. 5. When the statement of accusation was read to the petitioners under Section 251 Cr.P.C, both of them denied the accusation and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the accusation as many as 8 witnesses were examined including the said informant and the Investigating Officer. This is for your information and necessary action”. 5. When the statement of accusation was read to the petitioners under Section 251 Cr.P.C, both of them denied the accusation and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the accusation as many as 8 witnesses were examined including the said informant and the Investigating Officer. The informant in the examination-in-chief has stated as under: “On 28/09/13 I was the SDM of Kamalpur Sub-division and on that day I along with other official staff were performing one administrative camp at Kachucherra in one Community Hall. At around 2 pm, two persons suddenly arrived therein and behaving in violent manner towards me and other official staff and as such we failed to perform our official duties in good manner. That time one TSR personnel arrived therein and as such no further incidence could happen. Those two persons also abusing me in filthy manner. Subsequently both of them pacify with the help of my other official staff. Then I lodged my FIR with the O/C of Kachucherra P.S. after prepared by me wherein I put my signature. Witness identified the ejahar which is marked as Exhibit-1. Witness identified both the accused persons in the court dock by face ”. 6. PW-2, Sri Amaresh Barman is the Deputy Collector and Magistrate, posted in the office of PW-1 at Kamalpur. He has stated that on 28.09.2013 both the petitioners suddenly started hot altercation with the SDM of Kamalpur, namely Ravel Hemendra Kumar (PW-1) and the situation became very tense. Due to that incident, they failed to perform their official duties at Kachucherra for supplying marriage certificates to the villagers. PW-3, Sri Ranjit Roy has also stated in the similar manner. PW-4, Sri Shyam Joy Jamatia, another staff of the office of the SDM has replicated the statement of PW-2. PW-5, Sri Ashish Debnath has stated that the petitioner no. 2 herein suddenly became very violent and asking for stopping such marriage camp therein. PW-1 then requested him to calm down but he refused to listen anything. At that time the petitioner No.2 herein tried to assault him. For their such act, the marriage camp stopped functioning for some time. In the cross examination he could not find out that he made such statement to the police officer that even the petitioner No.1 attempted to assault him. At that time the petitioner No.2 herein tried to assault him. For their such act, the marriage camp stopped functioning for some time. In the cross examination he could not find out that he made such statement to the police officer that even the petitioner No.1 attempted to assault him. PW-6, Sri Swapan Debbarma was a villager who was present for collecting the marriage certificate has also corroborated the statement of PW-2. PW-7, Sri Niranjan Majumder did not state anything of material importance. PW-8, Sri Asit kumar Das is the Investigating Officer. He has simply stated how he had conducted the investigation by preparing the site map, examining the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C and forwarded the charge-sheet No. 15 of 2013 dated 29.09.2013 under Section 353/34 of the IPC sending the present petitioners to face the trial. He has also stated that the present petitioners were pacified by the TSR personnel. 7. After recording the statement of the petitioners under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, by the judgment dated 17.02.2014 delivered in case No. PRC 206 of 2013, the trial Court [the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamalpur, North Tripura] convicted the petitioners under Section 353/34 of the IPC and sentenced accordingly. The judgment of conviction has been affirmed by the appellate court, as stated. 8. Mr. HK Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the basic ingredient of the offence covered by Section 353 of the IPC has not been established. The basic ingredient is the assault or criminal force having applied with an intention to deter the government Officer who are in the course of discharging their duties but there is no such evidence of applying the criminal force. ‘Criminal force’ has been defined under Section 350 of the IPC. For purpose of reference Section 350 of the IPC is extracted herein below: “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”. 9. 9. The ‘assault’ has been defined under Section 351 of IPC which is as follows: “Whoever makes any gesture or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault”. 10. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has thus contended that there was no use of force against the informant or any other staff who were working under him in the alleged time of occurrence and as such the petitioners are entitled to get benefit of this and they should be acquitted from the accusation. But from a keen reading of Section 351 IPC it would be clear that assault also embraces any gesture or any preparation including or knowing to be likely to be that such gesture or preparation will cause any person to apprehend that such gesture or preparation is made to use or about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault. The basic ingredient of Section 353 of the IPC is that the accused causes assault or uses criminal forces to any person being a government servant during execution of his duty etc. Thus, on the face of the evidence it cannot be said that the petitioners did not commit the offence under Section 353/34 of the IPC. 11. Mr. RC Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that there is no inconsistency in the testimonies of the independent witnesses and they have all corroborated the accusation which has emanated from the complaint filed by PW-1. Therefore, this Court may not interfere with the judgment of conviction. 12. Having scrutinized the records and reappraised the evidence, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the finding of conviction. However, this court finds that the petitioners are young and they have acted in the manner, as stated, on a spurt of a moment and they were immediately pacified when there was effective intervention. Even no criminal antecedent has been recorded against them. 13. Having regard to these circumstances as noted, this Court is of the view that they are entitled to get benefit under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C by way of granting them probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Even no criminal antecedent has been recorded against them. 13. Having regard to these circumstances as noted, this Court is of the view that they are entitled to get benefit under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C by way of granting them probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, instead of imposing sentence on them, the petitioners are directed to be released on furnishing a bond of good conduct before the court of SDJM, Kamalpur within a period of 3(three) weeks from today and they shall remain under the surveillance and supervision of the Probation Officer for a period of 1(one) year from the date of furnishing bond in the court of the SDJM, Kamalpur. In the bond, they shall categorically undertake that they will maintain good conduct and they would not perpetuate any other offence. The Probation Officer shall keep an eye on them. If they violated or breached any of the terms of the said undertaking as would be made in the form of the bond, this order of Probation may be recalled by the SDJM, Kamalpur, and they shall be compelled in that event to suffer the imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court and as affirmed by the appellate Court. 14. With this observation and direction this petition is disposed of in terms of the above. Send down the LCRs forthwith.