In Re: Veerappan and Others

Maheswaran, J.—This revision is preferred by the petitioners against the order of the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam, dismissing Crl.M.P. No. 1179 of 1976 in C.C. No. 3590 of 1976 on his file holding that no offence triable by a Magistrate of First Class has been made out.

Crl.M.P. No. 1779 of 1976 in C.C. No. 3590 of 1976 was filed by the revision petitioners who were charged for offence under Ss. 447, 427 and 506 (Part I) I.P.C. in C.C. No. 3590 of 1976 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam. During the course of evidence, P.W.2 deposed that he was chased by the accused with dangerous weapons and that he ran for his life. At this stage, the recording of evidence was stopped and the learned counsel for the petitioners filed an application before the trial court that the evidence of P.W.2 discloses an offence under S. 506 (Part II), I.P.C. and that the case is triable by a Magistrate of First Class. The learned Magistrate found that no offence under S. 506 (fart II), I.P.C . has been made out and held that no offence triable by a Magistrate of First Class is made out, and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved, the revision petitioners have filed this Revision Petition.

A perusal of evidence of P.W.2 shows that when the accused were demolishing the channel bunds, he asked them, as to why they are demolishing them, and thereafter the first revision petitioner chased him with a crowbar, the second revision petitioner with an aruval and the third revision petitioner with a stick and that he apprehended danger to hit life and ran. The learned counsel appearing for the revision-petitioners says that the conduct of the revision petitioners in following P.W. 2 with dangerous weapons amount to threat which caused alarm to P.W.2 leading to apprehension of danger to his life, and therefore, the offence will fall squarely under S. 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code. Per contra, the Public Prosecutor pointed out that no words have been spoken by the revision petitioners, and therefore, there is no criminal intimidation. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that no words are necessary to constitute a threat and that the conduct itself is sufficient to constitute a threat which caused the alarm to the witness, P.W.2. Criminal intimidation is a declaration of ah intention to inflict injury to a person, reputation or property of an individual or group of individuals. It is the intention of the speaker that has to be considered in dealing as to whether what he stated comes within the mischief of S. 503, I.P.C. and the intention of the speaker can be gathered only from his words. It is only from the words spoken by the speaker, it is possible to describe the nature of the evil threatened. Here, in this case, no words are spoken by the revision petitioner at all. When P.W.2 asked the revision petitioner as to why they are demolishing the channel bunds, he was chased by the revision petitioners 1 and 2 with a crowbar and an aruval and by the third revision petitioner with a stick. As no words were spoken, the learned Magistrate is correct in his conclusion that there was no criminal intimidation. The evidence of P.W.2 does not disclose an offence punishable by a Magistrate of First Class. The order is correct and is confirmed. The revision fails and is dismissed.