Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : (s) Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Garima Bajaj, AOR Mr. Abhinav Sekhri, Adv. Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Karan Dhalla, Adv. Mr. Kumar Karan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Kriti Gupta, Adv.

Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

1. The appeal concerns the conviction of the appellant under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly attacking members of a trap team during a police operation, with the conviction confirmed by the High Court (!) (!) .

2. The appellant was originally convicted for obstructing public servants in the execution of their duty, but upon review, the court found that the essential ingredients for establishing criminal force under Section 353 IPC were not satisfied (!) (!) .

3. To establish a charge under Section 353 IPC, it must be proven that the accused intentionally used force against a public servant in the execution of their duty, or with the intent to prevent or deter such a duty, or as a consequence of an act done in lawful discharge of duty (!) (!) .

4. The legal definition of criminal force requires intentional use of force without the consent of the person, with the purpose of committing an offence or causing injury, fear, or annoyance (!) (!) .

5. The evidence on record indicated that the appellant's actions involved jostling and pushing while attempting to extricate himself from arrest, rather than assault or use of criminal force as defined by law (!) (!) .

6. There was no evidence that the appellant used any hard or blunt objects to cause injuries to the police personnel, and the injuries observed could have been caused by other means, but not necessarily by the appellant’s direct use of force (!) .

7. The court noted that the appellant was not charged under Section 186 of the IPC, which pertains to obstructing public servants, and that proper procedure under the law was not followed for such an offence, as no complaint was made under that section (!) (!) .

8. Based on the evidence and legal principles, the court held that the ingredients for criminal force under Section 353 IPC were not established, and the appellant’s conviction was set aside, resulting in his acquittal (!) .

9. The court emphasized that mere pushing or jostling, without intent to assault or use criminal force, does not satisfy the criteria for conviction under Section 353 IPC (!) .

10. The procedural requirement for taking cognizance of offences under Section 186 of the IPC was not met, reaffirming that the conviction under Section 353 was not justified (!) .

11. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence under Section 353 IPC were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the offence (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.