JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 3. The present case arises out of Dugda P.S. Case No. 6 of 2007 dated 19.04.2007, G.R. No. 291 of 2007, T.R. No. 186 of 2009. 4. This revision application has been filed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 10.03.2014 passed by learned Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) whereby the order passed by the learned court of A.C.J.M. Bermo at Tenughat has been affirmed. The learned trial court sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code; 6 months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code; 6 months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 200/- for offence under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner has been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days and the sentence was directed to run concurrently. The learned Appellate Court confirmed the conviction under all the Sections except under Section 323 of the IPC. Thus, ultimately the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 341/504/290 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence at all is made out against the petitioner. So far as Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the complainant was not moving towards any direction and therefore merely because it is alleged that the petitioner stood before the complainant with a stick, offence under Section 341 IPC is not made out. So far as offence under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, learned counsel submits that no person did any act out of alleged provocation and therefore no offence under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code is made out. Learned counsel also submits that offence under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the petitioner as land of the petitioner was acquired and therefore, he was at the place of occurrence as he used to visit the office regularly for the purposes of grant of compensation. 6. Learned counsel also submits that offence under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the petitioner as land of the petitioner was acquired and therefore, he was at the place of occurrence as he used to visit the office regularly for the purposes of grant of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that so far as section 341 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is not necessary that the person should be moving in any direction and basic ingredients of offence under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code is made out in the present case. He further submits that so far as ingredient of offence under Section 504 and Section 290 are concerned, they are clearly made out in the present case and there are concurrent findings by the learned courts below which do not call for any interference by this court. Learned counsel submits that the appellate court has acquitted the petitioner under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the custody of the petitioner has been at least from 21.04.2014 to 02.05.2014 as the bail order was passed by this court on 02.05.2014. He submits that thereafter a few days must have been taken for furnishing the bail bond before the learned court below. He also submits that it has come in evidence that the petitioner was in drunken state and that the offence is his first offence, so some lenient view may be taken and the sentence be modified. He also submits that if found proper the fine amount may be increased and the punishment be limited to the period in custody already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that so far as these sections are concerned, there is no minimum punishment as such prescribed in the Indian Penal Code. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that the case was registered on the basis of a written report of the informant on 19.04.2007 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 290 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and cognizance was also taken under the said Sections. After closure of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. After closure of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. and he pleaded innocence. 9. Altogether 10 witnesses were examined before the learned trial court and findings of the learned trial court has been recorded in para-10. It has been found that P.W. 1 had fully supported the case of prosecution by stating that on 19.04.2007 he saw that accused was abusing the informant having stick in his hand and was also adamant to hit with stick. P.W.-1 had interfered, by which the informant was saved by being assaulted by the accused. Learned trial court has also found that although P.W. 1 has stated that BCCL had acquired the land of several persons but has denied about the acquisition of the land of the petitioner. P.W. 4 is another eye witness of the case who has fully supported the prosecution case and has stated that the petitioner had come in drunken condition having stick in his hand and started abusing the complainant in filthy language and tried to hit the petitioner with stick but the accused was ultimately caught hold. After considering the materials on record, the learned trial court ultimately held that the petitioner had wrongfully restrained the complainant and his associates and was under influence of Alcohol and also abused the informant in filthy language and followed the informant to hit him with stick in his hand and accordingly the learned trial court held that the accused had committed the offence of wrongful restrain by causing nuisance by abusing him in filthy language and was about to assault but anyhow the informant was saved by one of his associates and convicted the petitioner under Sections 341/323/504/290 IPC. 10. While considering the point of sentence the learned trial court recorded that the offence of the petitioner was his first offence but keeping in mind the medical report of the petitioner held that the petitioner had intentionally insulted with intention to provoke breach of peace in a drunken state and under such circumstances the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act was not extended and sentenced the petitioner under all the Sections. 11. 11. Learned lower appellate court also considered all the evidences on record and held that there is no element of charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly acquitted the petitioner under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code but held the petitioner guilty under Sections 341/504/290 of the Indian Penal Code and also upheld the sentence under those Sections. 12. Thus the petitioner ultimately was convicted for 15 days simple imprisonment under Section 341 IPC, 6 months for offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 200/- for offence under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 13. Section 341 of Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for wrongful restraint. “Wrongful restraint” has been defined under Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code and this Section has two essentials ingredients ;(a) Voluntary obstruction of a person and (b) The obstruction must be such as to prevent the person from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed. This court finds that there are concurrent findings of fact by both the courts below that the petitioner had obstructed the informant voluntarily, in a drunken condition, by holding a stick in his hand. This Section does not require that the person so obstructed must be moving in a particular direction and the obstruction is complete if he is prevented from proceeding further in a particular direction in which he has right to proceed. Accordingly, the argument of the petitioner that no case under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner as the complainant was not moving towards any direction is not tenable. This court finds that there are concurrent finding of facts on the point of conviction of the petitioner under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no illegality or perversity in such findings. 14. Section 504 of Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of Peace. So far as offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the basic ingredient of the offence is intentionally insulting, so as to giving provocation to the person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit other offence. So far as offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the basic ingredient of the offence is intentionally insulting, so as to giving provocation to the person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit other offence. This court finds that there is no such requirement that the person provoked should actually act and cause breach of peace. This court finds that there is concurrent finding of facts by both the courts so far as ingredient of offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned and merely because the informant did not act pursuant to the provocation, the same does not have any bearing in the matter. Accordingly, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no person actually acted out of provocation and therefore no offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, is hereby rejected. 15. This court also finds that there is no illegality or perversity so far as conviction of the petitioner under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was at the place of occurrence as his land was acquired and used to come to the office for compensation. This court finds that there is no such evidence or finding that the land of the petitioner was acquired and in such circumstances such arguments of the petitioner has no bearing in the matter. 16. This court finds that there are concurrent finding of facts on this point and both the learned courts blow have convicted the petitioner and imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- upon the petitioner. This court does not find any illegality or perversity so far as offence under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. On the point of conviction of the petitioner under section 290 Indian Penal Code, there are concurrent findings of facts. There being no illegality or perversity, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 290 does not call for any interference. 17. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 341/290/504 of the Indian Penal Code in revisional jurisdiction. 18. There being no illegality or perversity, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 290 does not call for any interference. 17. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 341/290/504 of the Indian Penal Code in revisional jurisdiction. 18. So far as point of sentence is concerned, this court finds that the petitioner was admittedly in drunken state and it is his first offence. Further, the present age of the petitioner is about 50 years. The alleged offence is of the year 2007 and the petitioner has suffered rigorous of the criminal case for about 13 years. From the records of the learned trial court it appears that the petitioner had surrendered before the learned trial court on 21.04.2014 and was released on 7.5.2014 and has accordingly remained in custody in connection with this case for more than 15 days. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, this court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioner. 19. So far as sentence of the petitioner under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is modified and is limited to the period already undergone in custody by the petitioner with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The sentence of the petitioner under Sections 290 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code do not call for any modification. There is already a direction by the learned court below that the sentence to run concurrently. Thus, the total fine amount to be deposited is Rs.1000/- in connection with offence under section 504 and Rs.200/- in connection with offence under section 290 of Indian Penal Code. The fine amount is to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months from today before the learned trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner would undergo the sentence already awarded by the learned courts below. 20. This case is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid modification of sentence.