NAZIR AHEMED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State.

(2.) The present revision petition is filed against the order of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Ss. 353, 323 and 324 of IPC and confirming and modifying the order of the Trial Court by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5003/2019, wherein sentence is modified in respect of the offence punishable under Sec. 353 of IPC, wherein accused No.1 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 instead of sentence of six months and enhanced the fine from Rs.5,000.00 to Rs.10,000.00 confirming the conviction and sentence in respect of all the offences.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts failed to take note of that the mandatory requirement of Ss. 323, 324 and 353 of IPC has not been established by the prosecution as against the petitioner for conviction. In the absence of required ingredients for punishment under the said mandatory provision, the Courts below ought to have acquitted the petitioner. P.W.1 to P.W.3 have never stated exact abusing words uttered by the petitioner and it requires interference of this Court.