Find a Lawyer

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 60 of 1982, decided on 20th November, 1985.

‑‑--‑S. 500/506‑‑Criminal intimidation‑‑Accused allegedly having abused complainant and threatened to kill him‑‑Hurling of abuses, having been found punishable under S. 504, P.P.C. and not under 5.500, P.P.C, similarly threats simpliciter found, not amounting the criminal intimidation‑‑Statement of complainant, even if accepted at its face value, held, would not make out a case punishable under 5.500/506, P P.C.‑‑ Order of acquittal upheld.

Talib H. Rizvi for Petitioner.

This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Magistrate Section 30 Bhakkar whereby he, on 11‑10‑1982 acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 500/506, P.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant had successfully proved the charges against the respondent but the learned trial Court acquitted him without legal justification.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I find that the statement made by Ghulam Rasul in the Court accepted at its face value, no case punishable under section 500/506, P.P.C. is made out inasmuch as he stated that the accused had abused him and had threatened that he will kill him. The hurling of abuses is punishable under section 504 and not under section 500, P.P.C. As for section 506, P.P.C. a threat simpliciter does not amount to criminal intimidation as defined in section 503, P.P.C. It is very much necessary that the threats should be to cause alarm or to cause the complainant to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that of a threat simpliciter and the other ingredients have neither been alleged nor proved. The learned Magistrate has applied his conscious mind to the evidence and has given sound reasons in support of his judgment. The learned counsel has failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the judgment of the trial Court.

For what has been stated above, there is no justification to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The petition is dismissed in limine.

S.A. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.