Threats to Public Servants Cannot Be Washed Away by Time - Law May Forgive, But Does Not Forget - Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence Considering Age

Kerala High Court in a judgment authored by Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered a significant ruling, where the Court upheld the conviction of a 73-year-old shop owner, Nisthar, for criminal intimidation and obstruction of a public servant under Sections 506(i) and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court refused to interfere with the conviction but, considering the petitioner’s old age and the prolonged litigation spanning over two decades, reduced the substantive sentence from six months to three months rigorous imprisonment.

The High Court underlined the foundational principle of governance by observing: “Intimidation of a public servant performing lawful duty is a direct assault on the Rule of Law and must be condemned irrespective of the passage of time.”

This revisional challenge arose out of concurrent findings by the Magistrate Court and the Sessions Court convicting the petitioner for threatening and obstructing a Food Inspector (PW4) while she attempted to collect a milk sample at the petitioner’s shop on 31st December 2003. Although the accused was acquitted under Section 294(b) IPC, he was found guilty under Sections 353 and 506(i) IPC and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment, with the conviction subsequently upheld by the appellate court.

Arguing before the High Court, the petitioner sought to rely on his acquittal in a parallel proceeding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and urged the Court to set aside the conviction under IPC provisions. However, the Court firmly rejected this argument, stating:
“The acquittal under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act cannot exonerate the petitioner of the independent offence under the Indian Penal Code of obstructing and intimidating a public servant.”

Justice Edappagath highlighted the consistent and credible testimony of the Food Inspector, stating: “The evidence of PW4, who was in the lawful discharge of her duty, is clear, cogent and wholly reliable. She was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but her version remained unshaken and inspires confidence.”

The Court further observed that the absence of support from two other witnesses (PW2 and PW3 turning hostile) did not erode the prosecution’s case because, as the Court explained, “there is no rule of law that requires corroboration of a truthful and credible testimony.”

The High Court also dismissed the petitioner’s contention that his prosecution under IPC was barred in light of his acquittal under the PFA Act. Justice Edappagath drew a sharp legal distinction, holding: “Offences under Section 16(1)(c) and (d) of the PFA Act deal with prevention of sampling, whereas Section 353 IPC punishes the use of criminal force or assault to deter a public servant from duty. These offences are conceptually distinct and can coexist.”

Rejecting the argument regarding clubbing of trials under Section 210 Cr.P.C., the Court clarified: “Since the offences in the two cases are different and the incidents, though arising from the same visit, involve different acts, the procedural safeguard of Section 210 Cr.P.C. is inapplicable.”

Interestingly, the petitioner’s reliance on certain observations in the PFA acquittal judgment noting absence of obstruction was brushed aside by the High Court. The Court ruled: “The observation in the PFA judgment was in the context of sampling compliance and not in reference to use of criminal force under IPC. That cannot nullify the specific evidence of intimidation and obstruction proven herein.”

Noting that the petitioner had crossed the age of 73 years, suffered from age-related ailments, and considering the extraordinary 21-year pendency of the case, the High Court adopted a balanced approach by reducing the sentence while affirming the conviction. The Court concluded: “While law requires punishment for offences affecting public order, in this instance, compassion dictates tempering of the sentence in light of age and prolonged litigation.”

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition on merits but modified the sentence, reducing the term of imprisonment from six months to three months, with fine amounts remaining unchanged. The Court directed that the sentences under both counts shall run concurrently.

The Court succinctly summarised its approach: “The conviction under Sections 353 and 506(i) IPC stands affirmed to uphold respect for lawful authority, but the sentence is reduced to avoid unnecessary hardship on account of age and passage of time.”

Date of Decision: 17th July 2025