For an act to amount to criminal intimidation, there should be a clear intention to cause alarm or to cause the person threatened to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, and the person threatened must feel alarmed as a reasonable person.

S.B. Sen, J.

1. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows:-

On 21-5-59 at about 6-30 P.M., Ramchandra Desai, Tehsildar, P. W. 3, was just returning home after finishing his work. He met the applicant with his nephew. The applicant obstructed him, abused him and behaved very insolently and said that he would see and take revenge. The applicant was pacified by one Paribhau, Kanungo, P. W. 4 and Chandikaprasad P. W. 5. He was prosecuted for offence under Ss. 506 and 353, IPC but was convicted by the Magistrate under Section 506, IPC Only.

2. The Magistrate's finding is that when the Tehsildar was going, the applicant threatened him by the following words:-

According to him, the applicant committed an offence, under S. 506 of Criminal Intimidation. The lower appellate Court agreed with the view taken by the Magistrate. According to him, looking to the circumstances of the case, the way the applicant approached the Tehsildar, mental condition of both and the language used by the accused-applicant, there was criminal intimidation as contemplated in Section 503, IPC.

3. The words "" according to me are not sufficient to constitute criminal intimidation. The circumstances as accepted by the Courts below are that there were certain cases in which the applicant got adverse orders, and he also obstructed the Tehsildar white he was coming out of his office and going home.

4. The offence of criminal intimidation has been defined under S. 503, IPC. The most important ingredient of this offence is that there should be intention to cause alarm or to cause the person threatened to do any act which he is not legally bound to do. What was the threat in the words used is not clear. The words do not say that the applicant would assault him or would cause any harm to him. A Tehsildar of experience, was the present complainant is, would certainly not be alarmed by the mere use of words "" and "" P. W. 3 Ramchandra Desai, Tehsildar also in his evidence has not stated how he was alarmed and what he thought the applicant would do. They may be words of abuses and empty threats. In the words used, there should be a clear indication as to what the accused was going to do and the complainant must feel as a reasonable man that the accused was going to convert his words into action. The Deputy Government Advocate has not been able to tell as to what the accused meant to do and what precisely the words were indicating the intent. Under these circumstances therefore, the mere use of those words would not amount to criminal intimidation. The applicant is, therefore, entitled to acquittal. He is acquitted. The fine, if paid, be refunded.