HABIBULLAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows: -

(2.) THE Magistrate's finding is that when the Tehsildar was going, the applicant threatened him by the following words: -

(3.) THE offence of criminal intimidation has been defined under S. 503, IPC. The most important ingredient of this offence is that there should be intention to cause alarm or to cause the person threatened to do any act which he is not legally bound to do. What was the threat in the words used is not clear. The words do not say that the applicant would assault him or would cause any harm to him. A Tehsildar of experience, was the present complainant is, would certainly not be alarmed by the mere use of words "" and "" P. W. 3 Ramchandra Desai, Tehsildar also in his evidence has not stated how he was alarmed and what he thought the applicant would do. They may be words of abuses and empty threats. In the words used, there should be a clear indication as to what the accused was going to do and the complainant must feel as a reasonable man that the accused was going to convert his words into action. The Deputy Government Advocate has not been able to tell as to what the accused meant to do and what precisely the words were indicating the intent. Under these circumstances therefore, the mere use of those words would not amount to criminal intimidation. The applicant is, therefore, entitled to acquittal. He is acquitted. The fine, if paid, be refunded.