S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Revision filed under Sections 401 & 397 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.11.2011 passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2009, whereby the order of conviction was affirmed and sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M (S), Cuttack in G.R. Case No.632 of 1997/T.R Case No.364 of 2007 was modified to one of fine only.

2. The petitioner was subjected to prosecution in G.R. Case No.632 of 97/T.R. Case No.364 of 2007 registered under Sections 353/294/506 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.04.1997 the informant (P.W. 4) along with other Excise Constables had been to the court of learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack to produce an accused Radhu Behera, father of the petitioner. It was alleged that at about 1.10 P.M., the petitioner, who happens to be the son of the accused Radhu Behera came to the court premises and abused the informant in obscene language and threatened to kill him by means of a knife. Thereafter, the petitioner dealt a neck push to the informant, for which he fell down. On the basis of such allegation, F.I.R. was lodged at Lalbag Police Station, Cuttack. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Sections 353/294/506 of IPC and charges were framed against him under those Sections. The petitioner was put to trial. 4. To bring home charges, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses including the informant as P.W.4. P.Ws.1, 5 and 6 were three Excise Constables examined, two court staff examined as P.Ws.2 and 3, all were claimed to be the eye witnesses and I.O was examined as P.W.7. Besides examining the above-named witnesses, the prosecution also exhibited four documentary evidence, such as, F.I.R. (Ext.1), Command Certificate (Ext.2), seizure list (Ext.3) and formal F.I.R. (Ext.4). The plea of defence is that of completely denial. In proof of his plea, defence examined none. 5. The learned S.D.J.M (S), Cuttack analyzed the entire evidence on record, found the accused person/petitioner not guilty for the offences under Sections 294/506 of the IPC and acquitted him from the said charges but the petitioner was found guilty for commission of offence under Section 353 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

6. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.10.2009 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack in G.R Case No.632 of 1997/ T.R No.364 of 2007 was called in question by filing Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2009 before the Court of learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Cuttack, by the petitioner. 7. The petitioner has challenged the judgment/order of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below in the present Revision Petition. 8. Heard Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K Ragada, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 9. Perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner and meticulously evaluated the evidence on record. Although the petitioner was subjected to trial for the alleged offences under Sections 294/506/353 of the IPC but the trial Court went on to acquit the petitioner for the offences under Sections 294 & 506 of the IPC by disbelieving the ocular testimony of all the witnesses. However, the trial Court has convicted the petitioner for the alleged offence committed by him under Section 353 of the IPC. Relevant would be to reproduce the judgment of the learned trial Court in so far as recording of conviction against the petitioner for the offence under Section 353 of the IPC is concerned. “11. It is consistence evidence of the witnesses that on 10.04.1997, Radhu Behera was forwarded to the Court of JMFC (R), Cuttack and the accused pushed P.W.4 and he