THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1042 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.8.2003 made in Crl.A.No.17 of 2003 by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad at Bodhan, confirming the judgment dated 20.2.2003 made by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bodhan in C.C.No.128 of 2001. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: On 21.3.2001 at about 4.15 pm., the petitioner-accused went to the Electricity Revenue Office at Bodhan and abused A. Venkatesham (P.W.1), who has been working as Assistant Divisional Engineer, D.P.E., Nizamabad, in filthy language, caught hold of his collar and obstructed him while he was discharging his legitimate duties in the office stating that he booked a case against him one month back in respect of his rice mill. The said incident was witnessed by J. Rajam, B. Laxman, A. Rukmaiah, G.S.R. Chaudaiah and P.V. Ramana Murty and Y. Sreemannarayana Prasad. On a complaint given by P.W.1, a case in Crime No.66 of 2001 was registered and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.128 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- only in default to suffer S.I. for a period of three months. The same was questioned by way of filing an appeal in Crl.A.No.17 of 2003 before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 25.8.2003. The same is questioned in this revision. It is mainly contended that the petitioner is aged about 60 years and if there is conviction, he cannot get the passport and he cannot visit his daughters, who are staying abroad and apart from that, he is a respectable person in the vicinity and therefore, a lenient view may be taken. Having regard to the above submissions and in view of the fact that there is no previous conviction against the petitioner-accused and also in view of the nature of the offence as well as the sentence and also the age of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case wherein the provisions of section 360 of Cr.P.C., can be applied. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction imposed by the Courts below, this Court is of the view that the sentence of fine is liable to be set aside by invoking the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and by directing the petitioner to be set at liberty on probation of good conduct for a period of one year and also on condition of his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the effect that he will keep the peace and be of good behaviour during the probation period and that he will receive the sentence in case of breach of the condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour during the period of one year from the date of this judgment. With the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _____________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 24th February 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1042 of 2004 24.2.2011