ORDER : Heard Sri B. Madhusudan Adiga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 8-12-2014 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sringeri, in Criminal Case No.115 of 2012 and confirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2014 dated 11-1-2017. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant-State. 4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 7-5-2012 at about 3:30 p.m., the accused along with one Umesh had been to Hanumanagundi Falls in a Maruti Omni van bearing Registration No.KA-18/A-8651. The complainant-PW1-Raju was deputed to discharge his official duty at Hanumanagundi Falls, he asked the accused to purchase entry ticket by paying Rs.20/-for watching the Falls, but the accused refused to pay the amount, on the ground that he is a local person. When the complainant stopped the accused to visit the Falls, the accused assaulted the complainant with hands by holding his uniform, dragged him, kicked him and caused pain and obstructed the complainant from discharging his duty and threatened to his life. Hence, this led to registration of F.I.R. and investigation. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case, in all, examined twelve witnesses as PW1 to PW12, got marked eleven documents as per Exs.P1 to P11 and got marked one material object as per MO1. For the defence, DWs.1 and 2 are examined. The trial Court based on the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). 6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the accused preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. 7. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the accused preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused has contended that the accused deserves to be granted the benefit under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He further contended that the incident occurred on 7-5-2012 and almost eleven years have been elapsed and hence, considering the long passage of time, only fine may be imposed on the accused. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision petition. 8. Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, has contended that the accused misbehaved with PW1-L.J. Raju, who is a public servant and obstructed him from discharging his official duty and therefore, the Courts below have rightly convicted the accused. Moreover, the trial Court has already shown leniency by reducing the sentence. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 9. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence on record. a. PW1 has deposed that he was deputed to Hanumanagundi Falls on duty. On 7-5-2012 at about 3:30 p.m., the accused came in a purple colour Maruti Omni van bearing Registration No.KA-18 A-8651 along with another person. He asked the accused to purchase the entry ticket to watch the Falls. The accused refused to purchase the ticket and went to watch the Falls. Hence, he obstructed him to enter the Falls, at that time, the accused squeezed his neck tore his uniform and assaulted him with legs. When he started hue and cry, PW2, another Forest Watcher, and PW3, Fruit Vendor, came and pacified the quarrel. Thereafter, the accused purchased the ticket and went to watch the Falls and while entering the Falls, he threatened his life. Later, he informed the said incident to his superior officer and filed a complaint against the accused. b. PW2-Forest Watcher and PW3-Fruit Vendor have stated on par with PW1 and have fully supported the case of the prosecution. c. PW4-Student-cum-Fruit Vendor is a witness to spot mahazar (Ex.P2). d. PW5 is a witness to seizure mahazar (Ex.P3). He has deposed that in his presence, the Police seized the uniform of the complainant. b. PW2-Forest Watcher and PW3-Fruit Vendor have stated on par with PW1 and have fully supported the case of the prosecution. c. PW4-Student-cum-Fruit Vendor is a witness to spot mahazar (Ex.P2). d. PW5 is a witness to seizure mahazar (Ex.P3). He has deposed that in his presence, the Police seized the uniform of the complainant. e. PW6-Range Forest Officer has specifically stated that on 7-5-2012, he deputed the complainant and PW2 to Hanumanagundi Falls. The accused assaulted PWs.1 and 2 and obstructed them from discharging their duties. He sent them to the hospital for treatment and directed to give the report to the Police. f. PW7 and PW10 are witnesses to seizure of Maruti Omni van as per Ex.P8. They have not supported the case of the prosecution. g. PW8-Doctor, who treated the complainant in the hospital. According to him, the complainant had sustained abrasion measuring 5x0.5 c.m. over the left side of the neck, bruise and injury over left side neck measuring 2x1 c.m. and pain over right lower thoracic area and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. h. PW9-Police Constable, Sringeri Police Station, has deposed that on 9-5-2012, the Investigating Officer deputed him to seize the Maruti Omni van and accordingly, he seized the same and produced before the Investigating Officer with a report. j. PW11-Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who took up further investigation from PW12 and filed the charge-sheet. k. PW12-Sub-Inspector of Police has deposed that on 7-5-2012, he received a memo from Sringeri hospital, visited the hospital, recorded the statement of the complainant, registered the case and submitted the F.I.R. to the jurisdictional Court on 8-5-2012, drawn the mahazar in the presence of witnesses and seized the shirt of the complainant in the presence of panch witnesses and obtained the duty certificate of PWs.1 and 2 from the Range Forest Officer, arrested the accused and produced him before the trial Court and on 9-6-2012, he handed over the further investigation to PW11. 10. From the above evidence, it is clear that the accused hails from Hanumanagundi area and he had gone to watch Hanumanagundi Falls with his friend, at that time, PW1 being a public servant, prevented him and insisted him to purchase ticket. When the accused refused to purchase the entry ticket, there was scuffle between the accused and PW1. 11. 10. From the above evidence, it is clear that the accused hails from Hanumanagundi area and he had gone to watch Hanumanagundi Falls with his friend, at that time, PW1 being a public servant, prevented him and insisted him to purchase ticket. When the accused refused to purchase the entry ticket, there was scuffle between the accused and PW1. 11. The evidence of PW1-complainant corroborates with the evidence of PW2-eyewitness and PW3independent witness. As per their testimonies, the accused entered the forest area, i.e. Hanumanagundi Falls, without purchasing the ticket, at that time, PW1 was discharging his official duty as public servant and when PW1 prevented him to enter the Falls, the accused picked up quarrel with him, voluntarily caused hurt to PW1, tore his uniform and made criminal intimidation to eliminate him. Hence, the Courts below have given finding that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections Sections 323, 353 and 506 of the IPC. 12. To attract Section 323 of the IPC, the prosecution examined PW1/injured who in his evidence, has stated that the accused assaulted him and thus, he sustained nail abrasion over left side of neck, abrasion over left side of neck, bruise left side of neck and pain over lower thoracic area and as he sustained injuries, he was treated at Government hospital, Sringeri. This aspect has been established and proved. Section 323 IPC is a punishable offence for voluntarily causing hurt. 'Hurt' is defined under Section 319 of the IPC. As per Section 319 of the IPC, whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. Therefore, even causing bodily pain can be said to be causing hurt. This ratio is laid down in the case of LAKSHMAN SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR, reported in (2021) 9 SCC 191 . In the fact and circumstances of the present case, no error has been committed by the Courts below for convicting the accused under Section 323 of the IPC. 13. To attract Section 353 of the IPC, the prosecution must prove the fact that the public servant must be acting legally and he was actually engaged in execution of the duty. As per the evidence of PW6-Range Forest Officer, on 7-5-2012, PW1 was deputed to work at Hanumanagundi Falls along with PW2. 13. To attract Section 353 of the IPC, the prosecution must prove the fact that the public servant must be acting legally and he was actually engaged in execution of the duty. As per the evidence of PW6-Range Forest Officer, on 7-5-2012, PW1 was deputed to work at Hanumanagundi Falls along with PW2. As per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the accused entered the Falls without purchasing entry ticket, hence, PW1 insisted him to purchase the ticket. Therefore, PW1 acted in accordance with law. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the oral testimonies of PW2 and PW6. 14. In order to comply the ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC, PWs.1 to 3 have clearly stated that on the relevant date, time and place, the accused made criminal intimation to eliminate PW1, if he once again prevents him from entering Hanumanagundi Falls. To satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation, there has to be a threat of causing an injury to the person, reputation or property of the complainant by the accused which should be with an intention to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do so as to avoid the execution of such threat. 15. In case of MANIK TANEJA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) PART 7 SCC 423, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the ingredients of Section 503 and 506 of the IPC. ''11. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. “Criminal intimidation” as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under: “503.Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.” A reading of the definition of “criminal intimidation” would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.'' 16. From the perusal of the prosecution evidence, PWs.1 to 3 have clearly stated about the quarrel that took place between PW1 and the accused, at that time, the accused made criminal intimidation against PW1. The accused has not placed any material to establish that there was animosity between him and PW1 or PW2, who are official witnesses and they are not deposing falsely against the accused and therefore, there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused. 17. The revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently, there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. This ratio is laid down in the case of AMAR CHAND AGARWALLA v. SHANTI BOSE AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1973 SC 799 . 18. The object of revisional provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the Court to scrutinize the order, which upon the face of them bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law and the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. This ratio is laid down in the case of AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER reported in 2012 (9) SCC 460 . 19. This ratio is laid down in the case of AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER reported in 2012 (9) SCC 460 . 19. From the above cited decisions, it is clear that the Courts below have not committed any glaring defect in the proceedings or any manifest error of point of law. On perusal of the material available on record, it shows that the accused committed offence against the public servant. Obviously, the accused cannot be let off only with fine. However, considering the circumstances of the present case that eleven years have been elapsed, I am of the view that the accused deserves to be shown some leniency when it comes to substantive sentence. Further, since the accused is on bail for a long time, it is not a ground to show leniency. Hence, I propose to bring down the sentence of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC from three months of simple imprisonment to one month of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-and for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC, the same are maintained as ordered by the trial Court. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER : i The criminal revision petition is partly allowed. ii The judgment of conviction dated 8-12-2014 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sringeri, in Criminal Case No.115 of 2012 which is confirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2014 dated 11-1-2017 stands affirmed. iii However, the order on sentence dated 8-12-2014 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sringeri, in Criminal Case No.115 of 2012 insofar as the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC stands modified and the petitioner-accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. iv The sentence imposed by the trial Court against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC are maintained. All the sentences shall run concurrently. v The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- as directed by this Court inclusive of the fine amount imposed by the trial Court, before the trial Court within one month from today. All the sentences shall run concurrently. v The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- as directed by this Court inclusive of the fine amount imposed by the trial Court, before the trial Court within one month from today. vi The petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court to serve the sentence within one month from today. vii After deposit of fine amount before the trial Court, a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to PW1-complainant as compensation.