PRASAD Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under clause (k) of S. 56 of the Mysore Police Act, by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 11717 of 1959 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that the petitioner is the owner of a ferocious dog and he had let the same at large without a muzzle on the afternoon of 19-8-1959. It is further alleged that the said dog bit P.W. 1 at about 2.30 P. M. on that day. P.W. 1 and accused live in the same compound. The accused lives in the main bungalow and P.W. 1 with her family lives in one of the outhouses in that compound. It may be taken as proved that P.W. 1 was bitten by the dog as deposed to by her in her evidence. Her evidence on this point is corroborated by the medical evidence adduced and has been believed by the trial court.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the biting in question had taken place inside the compound and the dog was let at large without a muzzle within the compound and that being so, no offence under cl., (k) of S.56 of the police Act is made out. Sri Srikantiah, the learned counsel for petitioner further contends that the said Section 56 applies only to acts which have been committed in a street or in a public place. I do not think Sri Srikantiah is right in this contention. There are no words in the main part of the section which indicate that the offences mentioned in that section should have been committed either in a street or in a public place. There are several clauses in that section which make acts referred therein offences when committed in a street or in a public place, vide clauses (a)(c), (d) etc. But clause (k) is not one such clause. Sri Srikantiah has relied in support of his contention on the first marginal note to S. 56. That marginal note reads as follows :