JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J. (Oral): - The judgment of acquittal, recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, dated 22.8.1998, is assailed by he complainant Sushi! Kumar in this revision petition.

2. It appears, respondents Ram Narayan Prabhakar and Vijant Bhardwaj, hereinafter referred to as A-1 and A-2, were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution appears to be:

4. Complainant Sushi! Kumar was posted as Clerk in the office of District Ayurvedic Officer, Una, at the relevant time. On 5.7.1993, A-1 who was Medical Officer at Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Gondpur, visited the office of the District Ayurvedic Officer, Una at about 1 p.m. to collect the salary. He entered the room of the complainant and started abusing. Complainant ask to desist from abusing I A-1 picked up his Chappel and gave beatings to the complainant. In the process, cloths of the complainant were torn. A-2 Vijant Bhardwaj, who happened to be brother-in-law of A-1, abused the complainant.

5. Learned trial Magistrate noticed that the incident took place on 5.7.1993 whereas the complaint reached at Police Station, Una, on 8.7.1993. Though the report was lodged with the police on 5.7.1993 itself yet the complainant chose to be medically examined as a private person and produced medical certificate on 8.7.1993 when this case was registered by the police.

6. Sushil Kumar (PW-2) was Assistant in the Office of the District Ayurvedic Officer, Una. He was present at the relevant time. It is his evidence that an argument took place between the complainant and A-1. He further stated that A-1 threatened the complainant to come out and he would see him. It is his further evidence that the other co-accused was also arguing with th,e complainant. He deposed that he was not aware as to what arguments ensued between the complainant and accused, as he was busy in his own work. Though it is stated that the clothes of the complainant were torn but neither the complainant nor any witness stated about the clothes having been torn. The complainant merely stated that he was given beatings with Chappel. Evident as it is the ciothes would not be torn by beatings with Chappel.

7. The other witness did not support the prosecution case. Sushil Kumar (PW-4) who, according to the prosecution case, was present in the office at that point of time candidly stated that nothing happened in his presence. Similarly, Vinod Kumar, who is also stated to be an eyewitness, did not support the prosecution case. It is his evidence that no quarrel took place in his presence. To the same effect is the evidence of Roshan Lal, Pradhan of the Gram pa it, who was also present at the time of incident.

8. Accused examined Dr. Rajinder thakur as DW-1. It is his evidence that he had come to the Office to collect pay of the staff. According to him, A-1 had app compensatory leave which was converted by the complainant into causal leave and A-1 was inquiring from the complainant as to why he did so. It has his evidence that A-2 was not present on the spot.

9. Learned trial Magistrate took a view that the evidence led by the prosecution was not reliable and accordingly acquitted the accused.

10. The State did not file any appeal. It is in this background that the complainant has filed the present revision petition.

11. I have heard Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Subhash Sharma, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2.

12. Section 353 of the Code is a punitive provision providing for punishment for assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty. Section 353 of the Code may be reproduced for convenience. "353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty: Whoever assaults or uses criminal case to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document