RICHARD SALDANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by accused 1 and his father, accused 3, to revise a judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Trivandrum, by which, on appeal, he affirmed the convictions of the accused by the Stationary Second Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara, under S.353, I. P. C. and under S.353 read with S.109, I.P.C. respectively. In appeal, the accused were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) The broad facts are, that when Pw. 1, a Cooperative Extension Officer was proceeding to Trivandrum in a State Transport Bus, after 5 P. M., after attending a meeting of a Cooperative Society, the first accused assaulted him at the instigation of the third accused, at the Pulluvila bus stop. The courts below have entered the conviction under S.353, I. P. C. on the finding, that Pw. 1 while travelling in the bus, was executing his duty as a public servant. His headquarters and his residence are at Athiyannoor, a few miles away from Trivandrum. From the meeting place, he had to come to Trivandrum, and then take the bus to Athiyanoor. The principal question for decision in this revision petition, is whether Pw. 1 was executing his duty as a public servant, when he was travelling in the bus.

(3.) It was not disputed, that he was executing his duty as such, while attending the meeting of the Cooperative Society. According to Pw. 1, his duty extended till he submitted the report of the meeting to the officer at his headquarters. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate took the view, that Pw. 1 must be deemed to have been on duty, till his return journey to the headquarters was completed. S.353, I.P.C. has the following words, which alone are material for this case:-