THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.184 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was tried by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapur in C.C.No.146 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. The trial court having analysed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.600/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Questioning the said judgment dated 10.09.2001 the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2002 and the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Ananthapur by his judgment dated 11.09.2003 dismissed the said appeal. Hence this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner is resident of B.K. Samudram village. P.W.1 was working as Superintendent in M.R.O. Office, Ananthapur. One Ramanamma daughter of the petitioner is a kerosene dealer in 13th ward, Ananthapur. On 18.11.1998 at 10.30 AM the petitioner along with his daughter Ramanamma went to the MRO office to enquire P.W.1 about the kerosene coupons. There P.W.1 advised Ramanamma to take care in distribution of kerosene to the coupon holders. Immediately, the petitioner interfered and questioned P.W.1 as to why he advised his daughter and so saying he slapped P.W.1 on his cheek and deterred him from performing his official duties. P.Ws.2 and 3 who were sitting in the same office witnessed the same. In that connection a case in Cr.No.262 of 1998 was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 353 of IPC and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. 3 Heard. 4 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and having gone through the judgments passed by the courts below this court is of the opinion that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 clingingly establishes the fact that the petitioner tried to assault P.W.1. The evidence let in by the prosecution appears to be convincing. Hence this court is of the view that no interference is called for. Further, both the courts below have already taken lenient view in favour of the petitioner and imposed only fine. Hence, I see no merits in this revision and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed. 5 In the result, the revision is dismissed. -------------- 23.11.2010 Kvsn