VIJAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner by the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court-I) Bangalore City, in C.C. No. 3527 of 1980. The learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 92(1) (o) and (r) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs. 10 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days. The simple case of the prosecution is that at about 12-00 noon on 17-1-80, one Jayalakshmi noticed that in her absence the petitioner had spread wheat on the pial of her house and that she told the petitioner to remove the wheat as the children would spoil it, but the petitioner abused her in foul language and assaulted her. She subsequently informed the matter to the police and the police investigated into the case. After investigation, the petitioner was chargesheeted for having committed the aforementioned offence of which she has been held guilty. The only important question to be considered is whether the pial of a private house is a 'Public Place' so as to fall within the meaning of section 92(1) (o) and (r) of the Act. 'Public Place' is defined as follows in section 2(18) of the Act: - "Public Place" includes the foreshore, the precincts of every public building or monument, and all places accessible to the public lor drawing water, washing or bathing or for the purpose of recreation;" The learned State Public Prosecutor argued that pial of a house is accessible to public and, therefore, it is a public place within the meaning of the said provision. THIS argument does not appeal to me. At the most, it can be said that it is a private place to which any member of the public so minded can have access. Moreover, reading of the aforementioned definition of the term 'Public place' shows that places accessible to the public should be those for drawing water, washing or bathing or for purpose of recreation. Hence, it cannot be held that pial of a private house, which may be open to the public and, therefore, accessible" to the public, would satisfy this part of the definition. In the result, it will have to be held that the pro- secution has failed to establish that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under section 92 (1) (o) and (r) of the Act. In view of the foregoing reasons, I allow the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner by the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court-I) Bangalore City, in C. C. No. 3527 of 1980, and acquit the petitioner.