The court clarified that mere words do not amount to assault under section 351 IPC, but words may give meaning to gestures or preparations that make them amount to assault.

R.P. Shukla, J.

1. THIS Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of the XVth Additional Sessions Judge Kanpur, dated 26-7-1984 thereby upholding the conviction of applicants by the trial court under section 353 of Indian Penal Code to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each.

2. BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 25-7-1981 in the forenoon in between 10.15 A. M. to 1.30 P. M. when Sri R. S. Agarwal, Executive Engineer was sitting in his Divisional Office situate in Panki Power project for discharging his official duties the four applicants alongwith some others entered his office, assaulted him and used criminal force to prevent him from discharging his duties as such public servant and simultaneously they insulted thereby intending to breach the peace and criminally intimidated him to be dealt with dire consequences and threatened him to cause grievous hurt. Shri R. S. Agarwal made a written report of the incident in the police station Kalyanpur and the case was registered and investigated and the applicants were charge-sheeted and they were tried by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Joohi, Kanpur, who convicted them under sections 353, 504 and 506 IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each under section 353 IPC and sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court, sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- each under section 504 IPC, imposed fine of Rs. 75/- each under section 506 IPC and in default of payment of fine they were to undergo two months simple imprisonment. The applicants preferred appeal against this order which was ultimately partly allowed by the XVth Additional Sessions Judge Kanpur on 26-7-1984. The XVth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, allowed their appeal so far as punishment under sections 504 and 506 IPC was concerned. He set aside the conviction for the aforesaid offences. But he dismissed the appeal of the applicants against their conviction under section 353 IPC and upheld the order of the Magistrate sentencing the applicants to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved by this order the applicants have preferred this revision.

Learned counsel for the applicants has pointed out that according to the first information report Sri R. S. Agarwal, the informant complainant, was sitting in his Divisional Office discussing the problems of Hydro Electric Employees Union (Girish Pandey Group) and during the course of discussions, which lasted for about three hours, the applicant Beeche Ram abused him naming his father and the applicants Bikramaditya and Subeydar picked up a wooden stool for throwing it at him and the applicant Adya Shanker took out his shoes and threatened him with dire consequences when he would come out of his office. But during the course of trial improvement was made and it was stated by Sri Agarwal that the applicants alongwith some others forcibly entered his office when he was discharging his public duties as such officer (Executive Engineer, Electricity 400 KVA Sub Division, Panki Kanpur) and forced him into a discussion at about 12.00 or 12 45 P. M. on 25-7-1981, Beeche Ram, Bikramaditya, Subeydar and Adya Shanker abused him. Adya Shanker took out his shoes and threatened him, Bikramaditya and Subeydar picked up wooden stool to throw at him. The fact that the applicants forcibly entered the office of the Executive Engineer, who was acting in the discharge of his public duties as such officer and forced upon him the discussion was not even disclosed to the investigating officer under section 161 of the Cr. P.C. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that this embroidery was made in the case at the stage of the trial only to bring in the ingredients of the; offence under section 353 IPC against the applicants and, therefore, he submitted