In Re: Annakamu Chettiar

- - inthis case, however, the offence would clearly fallunder section 503 i.orderramaswami, j.1. it was argued by the learned counsel mr. ramachandran that when the revision petitioner threatened to kill the revenue inspector forlawfully distraining his properties, that would notamount to the offence of assault, for which he hasbeen convicted under section 353 i. p. c. i agree. ifthe words had been accompanied by any gesture --but unfortunately regarding which there is no evidence -- that would certainly amount to assault. inthis case, however, the offence would clearly fallunder section 503 i. p. c. namely, the offence of criminal intimidation. the illustration given in this section is appropriate to this case. 'a, for the purposeof inducing b to desist from prosecuting a civil suit,threatens to burn b's house. a is guilty of criminal intimidation.' the revision petitioner for the purposeof inducing the revenue inspector to desist from distraining his properties, threatened to kill the revenueinspector, arid therefore he is guilty of criminal intimidation. the conviction is altered from section 353i. p. c. to section 503 i. p. c. the sentence is maintain-,ed. the revision petition is dismissed.