JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved of the judgment dated 20.10.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2011 by which challenge by the petitioner to the judgment and order of conviction both dated 30.03.2011 has failed, the petitioner has filed the present criminal revision petition. 2. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that ingredients of the offence punishable under section 385 IPC are missing in the case and the prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioner had issued threat to the informant. 3. Mr. Ishteyaque Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the call detail record which was produced by the prosecution was not duly exhibited and therefore, on the basis of such evidence conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 385 IPC is not sustainable. 4. Briefly stated, on the allegation that the petitioner made a phone call on 08.09.2009 to the informant-Nayab Jeba to her mobile phone bearing no. 9431169513 demanding Rs. 5 lacs from her, Bhandra P.S. Case No. 43 of 2009 was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and charges for the offence under section 385, 386 IPC were framed against the accused-petitioner. During the trial, the prosecution has examined five witnesses; informant has been examined as P.W. 1. On appreciation of the evidence brought during the trial, the trial judge has recorded a finding that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all shadows of reasonable doubts. Defence raised by the petitioner, that since P.W.4 has been declared hostile the entire prosecution case must fail, was negated by the trial judge observing that merely because P.W.4 has been declared hostile, the prosecution case would not fail. The trial judge has sentenced accused-petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The appeal preferred by the petitioner vide Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2011 has been dismissed by judgment dated 20.10.2012. 5. The appellate court has again re-appreciated the evidence and found that from the mobile of the accused-petitioner threat was given to the informant; the petitioner has not challenged that mobile phone through which call had gone to the informant did not belong to him. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution has failed to prove that threat was issued by the petitioner to the informant, is untenable. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution has failed to prove that threat was issued by the petitioner to the informant, is untenable. It is not the words which matters the most, the tenor of the conversation and the attending circumstances can also point to the intention of the accused-petitioner. It is not a case pleaded by the petitioner that the informant is his friend and he has requested for a friendly loan or something like that. Once call to the informant from the mobile phone belonging to the petitioner stands proved; call detail record was marked as exhibit for identification, and the prosecution witnesses who are colleagues of the informant and were present in the office of the C.D.P.O. on the date the informant had received call from the petitioner were informed about the occurrence, the ingredients of section 385 IPC must be held proved. Two courts have on appreciation of the evidence brought on record found the petitioner guilty for the offence under section 385 IPC. 6. In the above facts, more particularly, in the aforesaid state of evidence, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2013 is dismissed. 7. The petitioner was released on bail by an order dated 24.01.2013. Accordingly, the bail-bonds are cancelled and the petitioner shall surrender before the concerned court within six weeks, failing which appropriate direction may be issued by the court concerned. 8. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.