BHEEMA RAO Vs. VENKAT RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed a criminal complaint against the respondent who is a practising lawyer at Bhalki in Bidar District for air offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The case made out in the com plaint is that when the complainant was being crossexamined in Civil Case No. 16/1 of 1959 in the Court of the Munsif, the accused used filthy words with the intention of insulting him and that though he felt very much annoyed he was helpless as he had to observe complete silence in order to maintain the dignity of the Court. After recording evidence as in a warrant case the Magistrate framed a charge under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and completed the trial according to law. During the course of his examination, under Section 342, Cr.P.C. the accused was questioned about the insulting language used by him against the complainant but he replied that he could not say what he had then said as he had been provoked by the complainant so as to affect his prestige. He adduced no evidence to support his defence.

(2.) On considering the evidence the Magistrate held that the words used by the accused were derogatory to the dignity of the person to whom they were addressed x x x x x particularly when they had been uttered by a legal practitioner but that the accused was entitled to the benefit of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code as the words were commonly used in everyday" life without any meaning or sting. He relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Philip Rangel v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Bom 193 and acquitted the accused.

(3.) The complainant has challenged the correctness of the decision before this court. Mr. Naik the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the accused intentionally insulted the complainant by the use of filthy words after his mother and thereby gave him provocation knowing that the provocation could cause him to commit a breach of the peace or commit any other offence. Mr. Ethirajulu Naidu the learned Advocate appearing for the accused sought to support the judgment of the trial court by urging that the words used by the accused may be defamatory but not insulting, that the Magistrate who knew the Urdu Language had come to the conclusion that the words had no sting being words of common abuse, that the accused had no intention to give any provocation to the complainant and that as the incident happened in the presence of the court there could be no question of anybody committing a breach of the public peace. He, strongly relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Philip Rangel's Case, AIR 1932 Bom 193, relied on by the Magistrate. He also submitted that as the accused had expressed repentance and offered unqualified apology at the earliest stage he was entitled to the benefit of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code.