Mere questioning, absent assault or criminal force, does not attract Section 353 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that, after the Forest Department seized the petitioner’s tipper in connection with the unauthorised removal of soil, he went to the complainant’s office, abused him and obstructed him in performing official duties.

The Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Sections 353 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to imprisonment and fines; the Sessions Court dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction.

The petitioner sought revision, contending, among other things, that the prosecution had not proved the ingredients of either offence.

1. Whether the concurrent findings of conviction suffered from illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference in revision.

2. Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of Section 353 IPC, including assault or use of criminal force against a public servant with the requisite intent to prevent or deter the performance of official duty.

3. Whether the prosecution proved intentional insult with the intention or knowledge required by Section 504 IPC.

Section 353 IPC requires proof of assault or use of criminal force against a public servant, with the intention of preventing or deterring that person from discharging official duty.

“Force” and “criminal force” are defined in Sections 349 and 350 IPC; criminal force requires intentional use of force without consent, with the specified purpose or likelihood of causing injury, fear or annoyance.

Section 504 IPC requires intentional insult accompanied by the intention or knowledge that the provocation is likely to cause a breach of public peace or commission of another offence.

In revision, concurrent findings are ordinarily not disturbed, but interference is warranted where findings are perverse, legally unsustainable or affected by manifest error resulting in miscarriage of justice.

The Court also referred to Mahendra Kumar Sonker v. State of Madhya Pradesh on the need to establish the ingredients of assault or criminal force for Section 353 IPC, and to a Karnataka High Court decision concerning evidence that the complainant was performing official duty at the relevant time.

The complaint and testimony indicated that the petitioner went to the complainant’s office after the vehicle seizure and questioned why his vehicle alone had been seized.

The Court found no specific, cogent evidence that the petitioner assaulted the complainant or used criminal force with the intent to prevent or deter official duty; questioning the seizure, without more, did not establish Section 353 IPC.

The complainant’s duty at the relevant time was also disputed, and the investigating officer had not verified the attendance register.

As to Section 504 IPC, the Court found that the alleged abuse was not established by sufficiently reliable evidence and that the requisite intention or knowledge had not been proved.

It therefore held that the convictions were unsustainable and that the deficiencies warranted revisional interference.

It set aside the Trial Court’s conviction and sentence and the Sessions Court’s affirming judgment, and acquitted the petitioner of the offences under Sections 353 and 504 IPC.

Any bail and surety bonds were discharged, and any fine deposited was ordered to be refunded in accordance with law.