WARYAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was convicted by Shri Aftab Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, of an offence under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and was awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months. His appeal was dismissed by Shri Gurcharan Singh Dhaliwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, against whose judgment the present petition for revision has been filed.

(2.) THE prosecution case may be stated thus. On the 5th of April, 1967 at about 10.30 A. M. Shri K. S. Sidhu, Executive Engineer, Sidhwan Division, Ludhiana (P W. 1) sent for the Petitioner who was employed as an Additional Sub -Divisional Clerk in the Executive Engineer's office but was found absent from his seat. In the evening, however, the Petitioner became available and was told by the Executive Engineer in the presence of Shri Avtar Singh, Sub -Divisional Officer (P. W. 2) to mend himself or face charges on the basis of complaints which had been received against his unsatisfactory work. The Petitioner flared up and threatened the Executive Engineer with, injury to his person by saying that he would see how the Executive Engineer would remain alive if the Petitioner was charge -sheeted. Getting alarmed the Executive Engineer had a case registered with the police who prosecuted the Petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel has relied on Data Ram v. The Empress(, 95 P.R. 1882), and Habibullak v. State(1961 M.P.L.J. 1190), in support of his contention that the effect of the threat on the person to whom it is extended is an important consideration for the determination of the question whether the threat would be covered by the provision of Section 508 However, neither of the two authorities, in my opinion, helps him as they are both clearly distinguishable on facts. In Data Ram v. The Empressd the accused and the complainant had a quarrel. The former ran and fetched his sword but was seized by other persons and disarmed before he could use the weapon and then he asserted his intention of killing the complainant if he were let go. Holding that the requisite intent was absent, Rattigan J., who delivered the judgment of the Division Bench before which the case was argued, observed -